Greenpeace Combats Planned Obsolescence in New Repairability Campaign, iPad and MacBook Score Low

[brdeveloper]

Planned obsolescence has nothing to do with repairability.

Planned obsolescence has something to do with planned obsolescence.

I partially agree. Although I bet my early-2013 rMBP will probably work well after 2023 I wonder if my late-2009 white macbook would be usable after 2012 without ram upgrade (2GB original) and a SSD (HDD original). I still use it majorly for watching lessons and taking notes on Google Docs. I also wonder if my wife's 2015 MBA with only 4GB of RAM will be usable after 2025. Mobile phone stuff is the state-of-the-art in personal computing, so manufacturers left our laptop computers alone without adding too much gimmicks which drain resources. SSDs were a game changer since they add a lot of longevity to a laptop on a context in which desktop operating system design is pretty stagnated.

A currently sold 16GB Mac will easily reach 10 years in a usable condition without upgrades, perhaps even more. I wonder if an easily upgradeable $400 laptop can reach anything near this lifetime without upgrades and massive repair. Which device has more potential of leaving more garbage in the environment?

 

[Johnny907]

Oh good, now where are the nutcase fanboi's that attack the exact same sentiment when it comes from iFixit, because they're just in it for the money and not the philosophy that E-waste is a growing problem due to the ridiculous design decisions and corporate practices like gluing components into devices and strictly controlling the flow of replacement parts making them either impossible to get ahold of or ridiculously expensive when you do? I have saved so many broken iOS devices from the trash bin in the 5 or so years I've been repairing them, and I don't even do it for profit, but rather to help out friends and family and because I agree completely with the philosophy that tech should be repairable by the end user whenever possible.

 

[Solomani]

I hope never to see a Greenpeace protest ship ramming itself into an Apple Retail Store.

It would be an ugly sight, to say the least.

 

[Johnny907]

What a bunch of tools (pun intended) ... maybe somebody should explain to them "Closed Loop Supply Chain". SMH.

https://www.apple.com/environment/resources/

Speaking of tools...

 

[EsqCats]

If you have a device that is manufactured with green energy and materials (which are also easy to recycle after the product is no longer useful) then that completely satisfies environmental concerns despite having nothing to do with repairability or frequency of replacement.

• An easy to repair device can still have very poor green creds (both in manufacture, operation and disposal.)
• Repairability is meaningless as all devices will eventually be decommissioned. Electronics are not like automobiles.
• Modern devices easily last the length of their useful lifetime. E.g. The first iPhones are still functional, except the network infrastructure these ran on has already been decommissioned - there is no way you can "repair" the first iPhone to run on 3G networks. Taking the car analogy, it's like the roads change every few years.
• Speaking of the car analogy, cars get written off too - something that is conveniently ignored by this analogy.

Finally, iFixit determine "repairability" by how easily they can repair a device only with their tools - this only applies to people who choose to repair devices at home with iFixit's tools and manuals, it does not represent real world repairability or the availability of repair services for devices. E.g. Repairing a broken iPhone is no more work for the consumer than dropping it off at an authorised repairer. What exactly is the "score" for walking into a store and dropping off a device?

The concept of user repairable goods is fundamentally broken - the necessary skills (or desire) to open up an electronic device, diagnose a fault and repair it is beyond such a significant percentage of the population that repairability has zero environmental impact versus the device being green to start with.

 

[Keirasplace]

I am still using a iPhone 4S, not because I'm cheap, but because it still works and does what I need it to do. That's fine except recently this perfectly good phone is being sabotaged somewhat by updates to the OS that slow it down and by incompatible app updates (some of which won't run on it, e.g., Skype). Thus, even if I sell the phone, it won't be desired others who might otherwise find the phone useful. I was going to upgrade to the next round of phones and keep my 4S for use outdoors as a GPS tracker, but now I am not so sure. I replaced the phone's battery through iFixit, but I gather they don't even make the batteries any more. Thus, in the end I suspect I will submit a perfectly usable phone before its time to recycling.

As a customer I wish Apple would let us get every possible moment of use out of our devices. My MacSE30 ran for 10 years before giving up the ghost, making it incredibly good value for the money, and my PowerBook 180 still works (I keep it for sentimental reasons). By making products with a shorter usable lifespan, Apple are devaluing their products, and that's not a good strategy if you charge premium prices.

The shorter usable lifespan from the battery is because the number of charging cycles of a phone is much higher, and the thermals means the battery is more abused by heat, than in larger devices like a laptop (which is also often plugged in when used). Until you get a battery that lasts 2000 full cycles, you won't get a phone that lasts that long without degradation, your phone won't last 10 years without changing the battery.

If you had checked the reviews of people before upgrading your phone you could have avoided the upgrade that slowed it down. These days, it's highly possible to avoid those upgrades if you absolutely don't want it.

Though if you reset the phones and they're not signing the version your on, you'll be forced to upgrade.

Why do they do this? To avoid having to patch hundreds of security holes in 20 different versions of IOS that people want to stay on when the issue is patched in a future version. Criminals could use this downgrade to bypass fixes and thus use it in a chain of exploits to break the phone's security and root it or escape sandboxes.
[doublepost=1498627417][/doublepost]

For the record, not for or against what the article is about:
1. LPDDR in the MacBook Pro has no DIMM like standard DDR ram. By nature it must be soldered onto a motherboard. (though I do think Apple could have a proprietary replaceable DIMM, but that's another story)

2. The SSD in the MacBook Pro is Apple's proprietary design, and at the time of release was the fastest SSD bar none. My guess for the gluing was to prevent reverse-engineering.

3. the same as above with the batteries

4. In my experience, the lifetime of an Apple product is much longer than their competitors. Every Dell I've had has crapped out in 3 years or less, and these were high-end MBP-fighters.

5. Apple supports their machines far longer than other companies, it was just this year that the last plastic-bodied Powerbook was obsoleted, and that's a period of over 10 years.

6. The problems with running newer iOS versions comes from the incredible advancement in the A-series chips, which have grown more powerful by leaps and bounds since their introduction.

Yes, IOS was originally conceived for a weak low power core, not a supercomputer.
With everyone now on a A7 and up SOCS I expect they'll support IOS for at least 1 year more than they did before.
[doublepost=1498627855][/doublepost]

Maybe, but in my experience, Apple could just as easily made iPad screens like modern iPhone screens. Not much glue and certainly just as good if not better. Do iMacs really need to be glued together? Do SSDs need to be soldered to the board? This is simple stuff to solve yet Apple seems to not get it.

IF it was "simple" they would have done, mechanical stresses on the frame of the Ipad are much larger than on the Iphone to torque, same with the large screen were the pressure point is far from the point it is attached introducing potentially a lot larger movements. If you combine both, having people carry the weight by pressing on the screen, you have a lot forces at play.

What seems to be obvious for a device that's meant to last 1 year (most of the tablet competition) and what needs to occur for a device that needs to last 5 years, is quite different.

 

[Winni]

The question really is, does it matter. I am sure the number of Fairphones, Dell's and Hp's in landfills exceed Apple products by a fair margin. While many of these devices are "repairable" I doubt many actually get repaired and are simply thrown out and replaced.

With an American "let's throw it all away and waste the planet, because we have a new planet waiting in our pockets and we don't care that our children have to pay the price for our stupidity" mentality, I'm sure that this is true.

It's scary to see how many posts here defend the industry's obvious planned obsolescence scheme and even seem to believe that it has to be this way.

 

[adib]

If Apple provided security updates for the older device instead of forcing to update to a slow, next gen iOS, maybe so. But because they wont, and they kind of guide people to update their devices... to an update that practically cripples the device.

I learned my lesson and will backup the every device always before an update. Just in case, if it holds a poison pill from Apple.

Apple supports their iPhone far longer than Samsung supports Galaxy.

Evidence:

• iPhone 5, supported from 2012-2017 (the last iOS to support would be 10.3.3, should be available just before fall 2017).
• Galaxy S III, supported from 2012–2013 (the last Android that supports it was 4.3 Jelly Bean released October 2013)

Full disclosure, we have both devices in the household. The iPhone 5 is running 10.3.2 and still much faster than Galaxy S III running 4.3.

 

[VulchR]

The shorter usable lifespan from the battery is because the number of charging cycles of a phone is much higher, and the thermals means the battery is more abused by heat, than in larger devices like a laptop (which is also often plugged in when used). Until you get a battery that lasts 2000 full cycles, you won't get a phone that lasts that long without degradation, your phone won't last 10 years without changing the battery.

If you had checked the reviews of people before upgrading your phone you could have avoided the upgrade that slowed it down. These days, it's highly possible to avoid those upgrades if you absolutely don't want it.

Though if you reset the phones and they're not signing the version your on, you'll be forced to upgrade.

Why do they do this? To avoid having to patch hundreds of security holes in 20 different versions of IOS that people want to stay on when the issue is patched in a future version. Criminals could use this downgrade to bypass fixes and thus use it in a chain of exploits to break the phone's security and root it or escape sandboxes.

I suppose my point about the batteries is that they are no longer being made. That means that at some point even if one wanted to keep a phone going, it will be impossible to do so. Imagine owning a car for which the batteries are no longer made...

As for software updates, I understand your point. However, iOS is set up to pester incessantly about upgrades. You can turn upgrades off etc. but then again some upgrades are useful and it is hard to tell how they will affect performance until they are installed. Again, I just don't think Apple should be making deliberate decisions to make older but functional products less usable. It's wasteful and damaging to the environment.

 

[lowendlinux]

I'd like to take "upgradability" off the table. That's not Greenpeace's business, but it is for iFixIt.

You don't buy a car or truck with an expectation of upgrading the engine four years later - you buy the size engine you need when you get the vehicle. If you need greater passenger capacity later on, you don't keep the chassis and change the body from sedan to minivan.

Right some of us buy it with the expectation we're going to tear into it as soon as it gets home.

No one ever replace components on a laptop or phone! Apple products (although not upgradeable) tend to last the longest for me. I buy Dell or HP, and the laptop is a piece of trash after 2-3 years, even if I upgrade the RAM. Their laptops falls apart after a couple of years.

I got my MacBook for more than 3 years, and it's still like new.

Look at how things are build in the first place, a good product doesn't need repairing or upgrading longer.

Yes, yes, yes we do, I have couple older Latitudes hanging around and the only part that has not been replaces in them is the graphics because it's soldered.

 

[indychris]

Maybe those "people" should start thinking for themselves then and stop buying stuff.
But taking responsibility for your own actions seems hard...

What a ridiculous comment. The point is the hypocrisy of all the companies who claim to be environmentally conscientious, but continue to flood the market with essentially disposable products while marketing in such a way to attempt to manipulate consumers into purchases that really aren't needed.

Now if you're trying to convince me that much of our culture is far too gullible, then I heartily agree.

And personally, I don't have a problem with the way the companies manufacture. I make the decisions that make the most sense to me personally, professionally and socially. The problem isn't the production; it's the false premise in which they produce. Kinda like billionaires who publicly complain about "the wealthy".

 

[Roadstar]

No one ever replace components on a laptop or phone! Apple products (although not upgradeable) tend to last the longest for me. I buy Dell or HP, and the laptop is a piece of trash after 2-3 years, even if I upgrade the RAM. Their laptops falls apart after a couple of years.

I got my MacBook for more than 3 years, and it's still like new.

Look at how things are build in the first place, a good product doesn't need repairing or upgrading longer.

Oh yes we do. I have a Dell that's around the same age as my old plastic MacBook. It has had its battery changed a couple of times and the hard drive swapped for an SSD. It still works and happily runs Windows 10, unlike the MacBook which is stuck on Lion and practically the only safe way to still use it online is to install either Windows on Linux on it.

In addition, my wife is still using a 2008 aluminum MacBook where I've upgraded RAM, swapped the hard drive a couple of times for a larger SSD, swapped the battery a couple of times, and replaced the trackpad. I don't think my 2015 MacBook Air gets as long a useful lifespan as it's harder to upgrade/repair than the older models.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Not really the best examples. Vinyl records still have a big following and still manufactured to this day. To many like me MP3s did not replace CDs. I still mostly buy CDs then rip to MP3 and ALAC. Like vinyl, CDs are still sold. Neither is obsolete. Maybe not prefered by the masses, but still very much in production.

Black and Decker is junk. The only thing lower is maybe Ryobi and Harbor Freight. But there is a market for those items too. Not everyone needs expensive construction or hobby grade tools. Harbor Freight and Ryobi will hold up fine to infrequent DIY tasks.

And, finally Apple does recycle a lot and has pledge to do even more in the future. But that doesn't excuse it from sealing up machines so there life can't be extended. For example, I have a 2012 21.5" iMac. No practical way to add RAM but it's otherwise a fine, usable machine. Add RAM would add years to it's viability and keep it out of the landfill that much longer and prevent me from buying a new one -- using up resources -- that much sooner. That is the essence of planned obsolence. It's not that technology keeps moving on, it's that users can't extend the tech they have longer because of the way it's built or the manufacture randomly stops supporting it.

We are different in that we would be capable swapping memory chips etc.

Agree on Ryobi (another copying company. They like to copy BOSCH) and their stuff doesn't hold up.

My main point is that companies do not "PLAN" obsolescence to make more money as somebody posted. In the electronics field it just happens with technological advances.

My examples may not be the strongest, but that fact that some consumers prefer one technology over the other (Vinyl, CDs over mp3s) does not mean that both technologies aren't obsolete.

To me obsolete means no longer needed, when there are other technologies. Personal preferences excluded.

I still have a 2008 17" MBP which I stretched into 2016 with HD, SSD and memory upgrades, however in the end I liked the Retina display of the newer MBPs. Most consumers would not open their machines. I pass down my older stuff or recycle them.

Again, in 2008 Apple was not planning for the 17" MBP to become obsolete, but technological advances made it so.
I still wish there was a 17" or even larger. Same for switching from Motorola to Intel chips. not planned, just a brilliant move when Motorola couldn't keep up with Intel.

So, I switched to OWC Thunderbolt dock, with a Dell monitor and use my MBPs in clamshell mode. All better for the environment than a desktop iMac, which I still have standing around as G3s and G4s.

What would help recycling would be if all companies design their products with recycling in mind AND offer to take
them back to do so.

Educating consumers would also help.

Attscking Apple for low fixit scores is doing nothing,

 

[dilbert99]

I'm no expert on the subject matter, but I can't help thinking that small components being replaceable is very likely to result in small components being put in the trash, whereas entire units being recycled seems more likely to result in less so.

But I'm sure many, more knowledgable people will disagree. Personally I don't really care. I just like nice stuff.

Taking it to the extreme, would you like to have to buy a new car if you got a puncture in one of its tyres?
[doublepost=1498653917][/doublepost]

People want thinner lighter products - you can't do that if you build it so it can be easily rebuilt after assembly. If you want a phone the size of a laptop - you might be able to make parts replaceable. Also it isn't an issue of take one out and put another in - a new chip might require different support chips.
Years ago I remember some company made modular computers so you could do upgrades like that - no one bought them.
This is an example of using data for something for which it was never designed to prove something you are desperate to prove

Thats a bit of a flawed argument. Analogue watches are more complicated to repair that phones and have smaller parts but can still be repaired.
[doublepost=1498654118][/doublepost]

It is hard to argue with these findings. Apple enjoys a reputation for the reliability and resale value of some of its products, but the near impossibility in replacing component parts should it be necessary, or indeed the very limited, conditional Apple Care Plan of 3 years, (which is really only 2 years in addition to a standard 1st. year warranty), is not attractive to some potential customers of such expensive products.

I think the only product that I have not had in for repair at Apple is my Apple tvs/Watch.
I've had every phone I have purchased from Apple replaced under warranty bar the 3GS.
Every iMac has been back in the shop.
So too has every laptop.
Apple are great at replacing things, bur poor at reliability
[doublepost=1498654502][/doublepost]

The more you try to make the production efficient the harder it is to repair. Can't have it both ways and make it look good at the same time.

I don't get your logic.
Apple devices are hard to repair for reasons such as but not limited to:

• Not providing schematics
• Using copious amounts of glue.

You can make things easier to repair while still making production efficient

 

[Paul Dawkins]

Taking it to the extreme, would you like to have to buy a new car if you got a puncture in one of its tyres?
[doublepost=1498653917][/doublepost]
Thats a bit of a flawed argument. Analogue watches are more complicated to repair that phones and have smaller parts but can still be repaired.
[doublepost=1498654118][/doublepost]
I think the only product that I have not had in for repair at Apple is my Apple tvs/Watch.
I've had every phone I have purchased from Apple replaced under warranty bar the 3GS.
Every iMac has been back in the shop.
So too has every laptop.
Apple are great at replacing things, bur poor at reliability
[doublepost=1498654502][/doublepost]
I don't get your logic.
Apple devices are hard to repair for reasons such as but not limited to:

• Not providing schematics
• Using copious amounts of glue.

You can make things easier to repair while still making production efficient

You can? Show me?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

My main point is that companies do not "PLAN" obsolescence to make more money as somebody posted. In the electronics field it just happens with technological advances.

We'll have to disagree there as to the concept. I agree companies do not have staff meetings to talk about how they can limit the life of a product so consumers need to upgrade before they are ready. But they do design products that, by its design, has a much shorted life span than if it was not a sealed system.

There really is no technological value to making, for example, the back of the iMac screw-less. That is aesthetics. And while Apple did put a user accessible RAM slot in the 27", why not the 21.5"? Why did they make the Mac mini last update and reduce it's upgradability when they didn't change the case? It wasn't updated tech that required it? And today's processors and GPUs even at the entry level are so powerful they can be useful for a decade. But often what hobbles them in low RAM and slow storage as OSes and programs get more bloated from version to version. Apple is historically chintzy with stock RAM and storage, and on most machines an owner has only one chance to upgrade.

Planning for obsolesce isn't necessarily "how can we design this product to be short lived." It's also ignoring making a product last for years so their trip to the landfill isn't so soon. Apple use to do that marvelously and elegantly across the entire line.

 

[Guy Clark]

Planned Obsolescence is rife within the Apple ecosystem.

Some Macs that will not run the latest version of macOS that are otherwise perfectly serviceable machines.

Similarly some iPhones and iPads which will not run the latest version of iOS which encompasses fine products like the iPad 2 and iPhone 4s.

Of course the most blatant example of this was the First Generation iPad unable to run anything later than iOS 5.

 

[Thunderhawks]

We are not in the know about how many people actually will/would have the knowledge or interest to upgrade their products, let alone have them repaired. Maybe Apple did studies and found that the majority of the consumers are fine with the way things are.

So, us few upgraders are just left in the dust. I am not for it, but I'll adjust.

Don't see we'll see a Mac mini again. I also question that ALL users always need the latest. If somebody just e-mails and
googles etc. they can stay on SnowLeopard and it all works.

One could keep a computer much longer than what that little "get the latest devil" tells us. I still have G3s and G4s and they work fine. There are just no upgrades for legacy apps.

But, at the speeds we work in in business they are limited.

Same for iPhones, I always skip 3 or more generations before replacing /upgrading.

Since everything is about money, bean counters in companies always look how to save a buck, regardless of the quality.

For example I bought a professional heat gun a few years ago. When I needed a second one, I bought the same model, which died within a few days of use.
When I took it apart I noticed the inside fan wheel which used to be made of metal was now plastic , which melted under the type of use I put these guns through.

That "design for profit" goes on in all industries.

Agreed that designing for a longer product life is unfortunately a lost art. Usually a repair costs more these days (If one can even find somebody) than rebuying the same/similar product from China

 

[Sedulous]

The shorter usable lifespan from the battery is because the number of charging cycles of a phone is much higher, and the thermals means the battery is more abused by heat, than in larger devices like a laptop (which is also often plugged in when used). Until you get a battery that lasts 2000 full cycles, you won't get a phone that lasts that long without degradation, your phone won't last 10 years without changing the battery.

If you had checked the reviews of people before upgrading your phone you could have avoided the upgrade that slowed it down. These days, it's highly possible to avoid those upgrades if you absolutely don't want it.

Though if you reset the phones and they're not signing the version your on, you'll be forced to upgrade.

Why do they do this? To avoid having to patch hundreds of security holes in 20 different versions of IOS that people want to stay on when the issue is patched in a future version. Criminals could use this downgrade to bypass fixes and thus use it in a chain of exploits to break the phone's security and root it or escape sandboxes.
[doublepost=1498627417][/doublepost]

Yes, IOS was originally conceived for a weak low power core, not a supercomputer.
With everyone now on a A7 and up SOCS I expect they'll support IOS for at least 1 year more than they did before.
[doublepost=1498627855][/doublepost]

IF it was "simple" they would have done, mechanical stresses on the frame of the Ipad are much larger than on the Iphone to torque, same with the large screen were the pressure point is far from the point it is attached introducing potentially a lot larger movements. If you combine both, having people carry the weight by pressing on the screen, you have a lot forces at play.

What seems to be obvious for a device that's meant to last 1 year (most of the tablet competition) and what needs to occur for a device that needs to last 5 years, is quite different.

I don't think you read what I wrote. ifixit is much happier with repairability of modern iPhones. So your argument is a bit off. iPhones are now very repairable AND tolerate torque eventhough the screen is largely held in by two screws and almost no adhesive. However Apple computers have poorly rated repairability because the display is held together with tons of adhesive, soldered RAM, soldered SSD. I can get over the soldered RAM, the glued displays suck but ok, but the SSD should be easily replaced... particularly if Apple is going to continue to solder the power button to the logic board (and because it is touchID capable: keyboard not replaceable). It is bad enough that Apple does not offer parts to third parties but their computer designs are creeping towards unrepairable without doing much to improve survivablity. Liquid damage kills most computers... yet Apple has yet to offer spill resistant computer designs. Don't get me wrong, I like Apple and use their products but their computers are not designed to tolerate the real world while essentially becoming disposable $2500 gadgets.

 

[Keirasplace]

I don't think you read what I wrote. ifixit is much happier with repairability of modern iPhones. So your argument is a bit off. iPhones are now very repairable AND tolerate torque eventhough the screen is largely held in by two screws and almost no adhesive. However Apple computers have poorly rated repairability because the display is held together with tons of adhesive, soldered RAM, soldered SSD. I can get over the soldered RAM, the glued displays suck but ok, but the SSD should be easily replaced... particularly if Apple is going to continue to solder the power button to the logic board (and because it is touchID capable: keyboard not replaceable). It is bad enough that Apple does not offer parts to third parties but their computer designs are creeping towards unrepairable without doing much to improve survivablity. Liquid damage kills most computers... yet Apple has yet to offer spill resistant computer designs. Don't get me wrong, I like Apple and use their products but their computers are not designed to tolerate the real world while essentially becoming disposable $2500 gadgets.

Well, maybe the Ipad will be able to be put underwater and they put Max OS on it you'll be able to use that .
Seems that the phone will soon be as good underwater as the watch, next one to get the treatment should be the Ipad.

 

[farmboy]

Maybe, but in my experience, Apple could just as easily made iPad screens like modern iPhone screens. Not much glue and certainly just as good if not better. Do iMacs really need to be glued together? Do SSDs need to be soldered to the board? This is simple stuff to solve yet Apple seems to not get it.

Just because something is glued does not mean it can't be replaced. A 1" or smaller putty knife does a good job separating glued things from the metal backing or brackets. The glass is removed with suction. Apple and authorized shops do this stuff all day long.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Right some of us buy it with the expectation we're going to tear into it as soon as it gets home.

Of course you do, but modifying a brand-new machine doesn't (normally) help the environment, and if you discard parts, it's actually a bit wasteful. Greenpeace's position happens to align with your own desires, nothing more.

 

[farmboy]

[*]Not providing schematics
[*]Using copious amounts of glue.
[/LIST]
You can make things easier to repair while still making production efficient

Well, it's too bad that you have had reliability issues. I never have with Apple things, since 1985 maybe three or four hard drives on the things I personally have owned (about 25 computers, four ipads, three iphones). The drives, of course are OEM other makers. I have kept all of them, and start them up every once in a while to play with them. Only a Mac II has failed, bad RAM that is no longer available. Anecdotal and all that, but it's the same with our work computers.

Why do you need schematics? I don't know your skill level, but you likely don't have any business doing repairs on any component smaller than, say, a credit card. Prying a glued item off will likely destroy the item itself, but that's why you bought the replacement part, right? Glue is usually applied in very finely measured amounts to very specific areas in industrial assembly, and those amounts and placements are determined by "shake, rattle and roll" tests in development phases. Nobody is slapping it on with a paint roller.

 

[Sedulous]

Just because something is glued does not mean it can't be replaced. A 1" or smaller putty knife does a good job separating glued things from the metal backing or brackets. The glass is removed with suction. Apple and authorized shops do this stuff all day long.

Yeah, I know because I do this repair all the time. But it adds an unnecessary layer of difficulty. Older MacBook/Pro display is not fun but at least the LCD is held in place by four screws. The Air is absolutely awful to repair. The LCD is wafer thin and ALSO glued on... so you use heat... but careful! Apple decided it was a great idea to make the backlight polarizer sheets loosely sit behind there! Sooooooo easily damaged. So you use less heat but now that thin LCD doesn't come off as easily so it chips and cracks. Make sure you find all those little glass bits that break off, otherwise your replacement LCD is going to crack because of it. And then there are the backlight ribbon and LVDS connectors that are behind the panel so as to maximize the difficulty to remove/insert (I know, Apple doesn't make the panels but still).

 

[dilbert99]

You can? Show me?

Don't use glue and use screws makes things easier to repair and won't affect Apples overall production. Does it really matter if a robot is gluing or screwing...