While the article touches some very important points, the fact that the author from the title and first sentence shows bias against Apple, makes this whole article clickbaity and in the end not newsworthy. It is clear that his arguments could be applied to all the major manufacturers, not only in the mobile industry, but in the electronics industry in general. A better coverage of the problems in the disposal of electronics in the 21st century without any particular bias would have been a better choice.

The author has a good point, the rate at which these phones become obsolete is ridiculous. However, I have to say this is bias considering I looked into who sponsors Mashable.com and found that it changes from week to week, but LG (one of Apples competitors) was one of them. Therefore, I would take this article with a grain of salt. And this coming form a guy who is not the biggest fan of Apple either.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This article comes from a place of genuine concern for consumer culture and ruins its credibility in the process. The author fails to cite official sources for his argument, referring to articles he has written or non-primary sources. Huffington post is never a primary source. The tone of the piece is confrontational, which leads to polarization of the audience. Using interjections after your hook is a cheap way to gain the attention of an audience. Casting the subject of your piece negatively by using pejorative adjectives is a bad way to bring your point across. In the end facts and primary sources should drive an article and leave the audience to make up their own mind. A good-intentioned article mired with direct attack and more opinion than fact does more harm than good to the subject.

You can trust this article to tell you a biased story that we all already know, and there are a few things to point out about this article: it's method of communication, it's selection of sources, and the adequacy of it's coverage on this issue. First, the author's method of communication was very colloquial by nature. This is a dangerous strategy, but if well-executed can be extremely effective in delivering messages calling for activism. This article did not find much success in using this strategy. The use of words such as "duh," or phrases like "it's a bunch of bullshit" and "Removable batteries might mean your iPhone has a bigger butt," can certainly humanize the author and make the topic more conversational; however, when discussing the electronic industry's regulatory capture, the use of this colloquial language immediately hinders the author's perceived credibility and knowledge of the policy creation process (in my view, at least). Second, the author's selection of sources and where it drew information from was limited and clearly biased. By including inputs from sources such as Kyle Wiens, the CEO of iFixit who would obviously have harsh things to say about Apple and it's lobbying efforts to halt adoption of more stringent repair standards, the author does not critically address the issue and reiterates only one stance on the topic. In addition, consistently drawing upon the newly released study for information and not including other widely credible sources only narrows the applicability of the article. Lastly, the breadth of the article's coverage of the topic was not adequate. To play devil's advocate, the author did not address what the industry at large is currently doing in terms of environmental awareness and protection. In fact, the article started by bringing up the electronic industry's involvement in sabotaging the creation of environmental policies, but eventually found it's purpose in demonizing Apple. Structuring the article around Apple would certainly be beneficial for discussing this topic as the company is the industry leader; however, it's true value would be tying it's relevancy back into industry-wide implications. Even when solely focusing on Apple, the article never discussed the company's Corporate Social Responsibility endeavors, nor did the author express his intent to contact the Vice President of Environmental Initiatives for Apple, Lisa Jackson, for an opinion. Apple's response provided by the author when contacted about the newly released study was very clearly marketing and leads the reader to think that whomever responded on behalf of Apple was in no way involved in Apple's decision-making. This extends a very impersonal and uninvested sentiment. Finally, the brief discussion of the "Right to Repair" was abysmal. The author left me asking countless questions like: What is this and what legal grounding does this have? Is this a program that companies participate in, and if so, what companies participate? Or even, Where do we draw the line between the right to repair and impeding intellectual property rights? The author could have done much, much better.

Though the author doesn't seem to offer any information that cannot be verified by google, he is also very clearly subjective and so the article risks lacking adequate defense from the accused (in this case Apple). However he does include a response from the Apple team - which touched upon his accusation that Apple is less eco-friendly than they self-righteously claim to be. It is interesting that he calls out Apple for valuing profits over durability and I would like to see more companies being challenged to offer more sustainable and longer lasting products to their customers. However it does seem like he's singling out Apple in particular. I would have liked it to be a more inclusive analysis of company ethics in corporate America in general - however perhaps he believes that singling out one company (the most profitable company in the world no less) may be more affective then unleashing an all out war on corporate america.

Interesting topic and a call for action to be taken in order to increase the use of repairable devices and hold companies responsible for their environmental impact. However, by singling out Apple products specifically with no mention of other companies doing the same thing is unfair and weakens the argument substantially.

I get the author's point, but nearly all products developed now a days aren't built to last. Apple is being singled out unfairly

Author Damon Beres makes it clear, even from the headline alone, that he is not a fan of Apple. This piece goes after Apple for their policy of favoring replacements over repairs. This is an important issue because it's important for our limited natural resources that we have more of a repair approach to hardware products. Damon goes too far with his fury for Apple, sometimes attributing malice when profit driven motives is a much simpler explanation. He also doesn't go after any other company with similar practices and includes snarky quotes from himself and others. Overall this piece is not very helpful because it screams author bias so much that the information it contains becomes less meaningful.

The author clearly has a strong point of view but he also makes an important point that our use of non-repairable devices that need to be replaced every 1-2 years is causing an environmental problem. I'm not so trouble that he uses Apple as his primary punching bag given that Apple is one of the leaders and main beneficiaries of this trend.

Straight up clickbait, the same points the author builds his opinion upon could be applied to just about every piece of technology available today.

Despite providing sufficient and well-sourced links to many of his claims, author Damon Beres fails to provide the evidence to support his title and conclusion. Choosing how to rate this article was difficult as Damon clearly expresses his opinion towards Apple with disdain and punchy lines. It also felt borderline non-sequitur because he bounces from 'right to repair' to denying replaceable batteries, while always reminding the reader of how much Apple cares about profits. With the right research, this article had the ability to change the way I thought of Apple's environmental actions but Damon Beres failed to do so. Clickbait.

Biased, opinion based, and annoying tbh.