While this is good, if they can prove and demonstrate that their recycling process is equal or better in environmental impact, the repairability only helps repair shops stay in business. Of course, this is a big if, and I don't think they are anywhere near that goal, especially considering sourcing various materials. Just a nuance I often see missing from these conversations.
I’ll start using it as soon as I wake up in the morning, and while I do not talk on the phone much, I am constantly using messaging apps, a brokerage app, and reading webpages for many hours throughout the day.
I suppose there is a distribution for processor efficiency, screens, battery size and so on that could put you at an extreme end of the range, being charitable. Still, this seems unlikely given most people's experiences with these devices.
iPhones have consistently gotten both thicker and larger battery capacity over the years. iPhone X from 2017 was 7.7mm and 2716 mAh, iPhone 15 Pro is 8.25mm and 3274 mAh.
> should be fairly simple to see how a slightly larger input up front could result in less maintenance over time
Heavier phones hit the ground with more momentum. Moreover, how many people throw away—not sell or trade in—their phones because of battery alone? Given the ease of replacing iPhone batteries, I’d guess it’s minimal.
The only thing more battery grants in scale is on the packaging and microcontroller. Compare that to the excess material, on account of folks charging their phone every day (switching from daily to every-third-day charging is unlikely a meaningful behavioural update), and you see the net waste. Particularly when heavy users can be segmented to with external battery packs. (Which don’t add the momentum tax.)
It could help. But proposing using more material use in an environmental discussion without thought to its trade-offs isn’t serious debate.
At least something...