1. Headline & intro
Apple and Lenovo just earned some of the worst scores in a new ranking of how easy it is to fix laptops and smartphones. That’s not just a PR problem – it’s a direct collision between Big Tech’s design habits and a regulatory wave building in Europe and beyond.
Consumers are keeping devices longer, repair shops are finally getting better access to parts, and lawmakers are sharpening right‑to‑repair rules. Into this moment drops a report that essentially says: two of the biggest PC brands still aren’t serious about repairability. In this piece, we’ll unpack what the report actually measured, why Apple and Lenovo stand out, and what this means for buyers, repairers and regulators over the next few years.
2. The news in brief
According to Ars Technica, a new analysis from US consumer group Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund rates Apple and Lenovo among the least repairable major laptop brands, with Apple also near the bottom for smartphones.
The study, part of PIRG’s 2026 "Failing the Fix" report, examined the ten newest laptops and phones listed on each manufacturer’s French website as of January. For laptops, PIRG relied on France’s mandatory repairability index but gave extra weight to how easy it is to physically take a product apart. It also adjusted scores based on whether companies fund US trade groups that lobby against right‑to‑repair laws, and whether they have publicly supported such laws.
Apple received a C‑ for laptops and a D‑ for phones. Lenovo’s laptops also scored a C‑, leaving it second from the bottom among the biggest US laptop brands. For phones, PIRG used a separate EU scoring system, EPREL, that evaluates six aspects of repairability, from disassembly to software update policies.
3. Why this matters
Repairability is no longer a niche concern for tinkerers; it’s turning into a core feature, alongside battery life and screen quality. A C‑ might sound like a school report card annoyance, but for Apple, Lenovo and their customers it has three concrete implications.
First, the economics. Hard‑to‑repair designs push users toward expensive OEM repair channels or premature replacement. That’s good for short‑term hardware revenue, but terrible for total cost of ownership in households, schools and enterprises that want to keep devices five to eight years. As more public institutions build sustainability criteria into procurement, low repair scores can become a competitive disadvantage in tenders.
Second, the trust issue. Both Apple and Lenovo like to present themselves as responsible climate actors. When independent scoring systems show that devices are difficult to open, parts are scarce or overpriced, or documentation is missing, that narrative weakens. Lenovo in particular looks sloppy: after saying last year that missing French repair documents were a temporary web issue, it is still not fully compliant, according to PIRG.
Third, the regulatory tailwind. In the US, right‑to‑repair laws are spreading state by state. In the EU, the direction of travel is even clearer: the political system has decided that products must last longer and be easier to fix. Brands that drag their feet will not only face public shaming – they will eventually hit legal walls.
In that sense, this report is less a surprise and more a warning label on current design strategies.
4. The bigger picture
PIRG’s findings slot neatly into a broader trend: the slow, uneven pivot from sealed, glued, proprietary gadgets toward more modular and repair‑friendly hardware.
We’ve seen early proof points. Niche players like Framework have built entire business models around repairability and upgradability, proving there is at least a passionate enthusiast market. Dell, HP and even Microsoft (with recent Surface revisions) have quietly introduced more screw‑based, modular designs, aided in part by iFixit partnerships and regulatory pressure.
Apple is an interesting paradox here. On the one hand, its laptops and phones still score poorly on disassembly. On the other, it has started to move: the MacBook Neo line is singled out in the PIRG report as meaningfully better, and Apple has rolled out self‑service repair programs and a Repair Assistant tool. It has also eased some of the more egregious "parts pairing" restrictions, where unofficial components would simply not work.
Yet the core lock‑in architecture remains intact. Features like Activation Lock now extending to individual parts, and critical systems such as Face ID still effectively off‑limits to independent repairers, show how software and security features can be used as a de‑facto barrier to a secondary parts market.
Historically, every time regulators started to regulate emissions, safety or privacy, the industry spent a few years insisting that change was "impossible" until it quietly became the new normal. Repairability looks like it’s entering the same cycle. This report nudges the Overton window further: a C‑ in 2026 might be tolerable; the same grade in 2030 could be commercially toxic.
5. The European / regional angle
Europe is not a passive observer in this story; it is the main arena. PIRG’s laptop grades are anchored in the French repairability index, which already forces vendors to publish a score on every compatible product sold in France. For smartphones, PIRG builds on EPREL, the EU’s official registry that, since 2025, includes a dedicated repairability metric for phones and tablets.
On top of that, the EU has agreed new right‑to‑repair rules that oblige manufacturers to prioritise repair over replacement in certain cases, make spare parts and documentation available for longer, and improve access for independent repairers. Member states will be implementing these provisions over the next few years.
For European buyers, this means three things. First, transparency: scores like those in France will be increasingly visible at the point of sale. Second, leverage: when public authorities and large enterprises in the EU start to include repair scores in their procurement criteria, low‑scoring brands will feel it in their sales figures. Third, opportunity: from Berlin to Ljubljana and Zagreb, local repair shops and refurbishers gain a stronger legal footing and a clearer marketing message.
US‑centric brands sometimes underestimate how different the European regulatory climate is. This report is a reminder that "designing for repair" is no longer optional fine print in the EU – it’s fast becoming table stakes.
6. Looking ahead
The most likely scenario is incremental, not revolutionary change.
Apple will continue its two‑steps‑forward, one‑step‑back approach: select models like the MacBook Neo will quietly become easier to open and service; self‑service repair will expand to more countries; some software locks will soften, others will reappear in new forms. The company’s hardware margins and control instincts are simply too strong for a sudden embrace of fully modular, open repair.
Lenovo faces a different challenge: reputational credibility. Being caught out two years in a row on something as basic as publishing mandatory repair information in France suggests a governance problem rather than a mere web glitch. Expect French authorities – and possibly other EU states – to raise the pressure if compliance doesn’t improve quickly.
For the industry as a whole, watch three signals:
- Procurement requirements. When large European governments or school systems explicitly demand minimum repairability scores, the internal business case for redesigns will change quickly.
- Software update policies. EPREL directly rewards longer support windows. If Samsung, Apple and others move beyond the current five‑year norm, scores will jump without a single screw being moved.
- Parts pairing regulation. The next big fight will be over the legality of using software locks to block third‑party parts. If the EU draws a hard line here, many current business models will need rethinking.
7. The bottom line
PIRG’s report doesn’t tell us anything magical about Apple or Lenovo – it simply quantifies what many repair advocates have been complaining about for a decade. The difference in 2026 is the context: regulators are aligned, consumers are better informed, and alternatives are emerging. Brands that still treat repairability as a marketing afterthought are running out of excuses.
The real question for readers is this: when you buy your next laptop or phone, will you treat repairability scores as seriously as battery life or camera quality?
