Skip to content
All the assessed products scored less than 5 out of 10. (Except Fairphone, which is not available in Thailand. The product was included in the assessment to demonstrate the best case is possible — see more in section 10.2.2.)Newer models of the same brands have better Product Design for Repairability & Upgradability (Aspect 1), particularly the software update warranty in Criteria 1.1 (Design for long-lasting) and design for disassembly (Criteria 1.2). Besides Fairphone, the Pixel 9 offered the longest period of OS and security updates (up to 7 years). In the aspect of Repair Support & Service (Aspect 2), all of the brands (except Fairphone) provide only a 1-year commercial warranty unless the consumers purchase an additional warranty package. Apple and Samsung performed well in providing access to their repair services (Criterion 2.2) through official and authorized partners nationwide. We couldn’t find official repair services from Google Pixel in Thailand. However, in January 2024, Google published a white paper that supports the concept of repairability. It wrote a strong statement saying “we want our devices to be used as long as possible,” which allows the public to hold the brand accountable for its repairability performance in the coming years. All brands generally performed well in the documentation & support information (Aspect 3), which entails 1. general information of the product’s component and maintenance (Criteria 3.1) and 2. access to repair guidelines (Criteria 3.2). It is important to note that the repair guidelines provided by the brands are available on the global website, but not communicated on their Thai website.All the brands are unsupportive in providing their consumers with access to spare parts in Thailand (Aspect 4, Criteria 4.1 & 4.2). Thai consumers cannot purchase authorized spare parts from the brands, unlike consumers in the US or Europe.Regarding the affordability of the repair service (Aspect 5, Criteria 2), the performance varies across the brands. Google doesn’t publish repair pricing publicly, only through quotation from its support system (but the repair service is not available in Thailand anyway). Apple’s maximum repair pricing is over 50% of the product’s original price. Fairphone and Samsung have almost equally the lowest amount of the maximum repair pricing, which is about 30% of the original product price.
Similar to the case of smartphones, all the laptops we assessed scored less than 5 out of 10, and all brands generally performed well in the document & support information (Aspect 3).In terms of the design for disassembly (Aspect 1, Criteria 1.2), Lenovo and HP have both designed their laptops to be easily disassembled for a long time. Most of Lenovo’s ThinkPad models scored 9/10 or 10/10 on iFixit. Most of HP’s products also scored about 9/10, if not 10/10, except for the EliteBook x360 1040 G5 model. On the contrary, Apple and Microsoft improved their product designs after 2020. Particularly, Microsoft’s products saw a significant improvement, with their score going from 0/10 to 8/10 for the first time. The improvement coincides with the beginning of legislative pressures on eco-design and the right to repair in the European Union and the United States around that time. All brands provide online repair guides (Aspect 3, Criteria 3.2) for the assessed products (in English), except for Apple’s MacBook Pro 16″ (2019). Unlike smartphones, we couldn’t find video tutorial(s) for the MacBook we studied. We couldn’t find any brand that clearly informs its consumers about the repair guidelines of the product in the user manual.Besides Microsoft’s Surface laptops, other brands have authorized repair shops in Thailand (Aspect 2, Criteria 2.2). HP and Apple, in particular, offer mail-in or delivery repair service. Unlike smartphones, we couldn’t find information regarding the actual repair price for most brands (including Apple) (Aspect 5, Criteria 5.2). We could find the information from Microsoft, but the maximum repair price of both models is about 50% of the product’s price upon release. The information is also negligible since the brand does not have authorized repair shops here yet.Apple and Lenovo offer a 5-year guarantee period for spare parts availability, while Microsoft provides a 3-year guarantee (Aspect 4, Criteria 4.1). We couldn’t find the official guarantee period for HP. Nonetheless, none of this matters as none of the brands offer market accessibility to spare parts in Thailand (Aspect 4, Criteria 4.2).
Unlike the electronic devices, all jeans brands scored above 5 out of 10. This is because there is a significantly different amount of assessment criteria included between textile and electronic devices.Except for Levi’s jeans, all the assessed products offer a 30-day return policy (Aspect 2, Criteria 2.1). Products purchased from Levi’s Thailand are subject to a 15-day return policy. However, the brand provides a 30-day return policy in the United States and Canada. In terms of product warranty, Nudies Jeans and Patagonia offer a lifetime product warranty, offering free repair in most cases. Levi’s jeans offer a 2-year product warranty to customers in the US and Canada only, and the warranty program does not cover product repairs. It only compensates the customer with a replacement voucher. Patagonia provides both online and walk-in repair service (Aspect 2, Criteria 2.2). However, for Thai consumers, the online repair service is the only option unless they travel abroad and drop their clothes in the store for the brand to fix (free of charge). Nudie Jeans does not offer an online service, but it provides walk-in repair services in its only store in Thailand and also at two other repair shops it partnered with (all located in Bangkok). Repair services from UNIQLO are available offline and only at RE: UNIQLO STUDIO at Central World (3rd Floor). Similarly, Levi’s offers repair services only at Levi's® Tailor Shop (3 stores in Thailand, Bangkok only)All brands performed well in documenting and sharing the product components and care, as well as the repair guidelines! (Aspect 3, Criteria 3.1 & 3.2). However, only Nudie Jeans and Patagonia clearly communicate their messages in public, encouraging product repair over buying new Aspect 2, Criteria 2.3).All brands offer reasonable repair prices, especially Nudie Jeans and Patagonia, which often provide them at no additional cost (Aspect 5, Criteria 5.2).
Apple’s MacBook Pro in 2021 has a better design for disassembly than its 2019 model. The same goes for Microsoft’s Surface Laptop 3 (2019) and Surface Laptop 5 (2022). Google announces that Pixel 8 (2023) and later phones will get updates for 7 years, starting from when the device first became available on the Google Store in the USAll brands launched the self-service program, releasing guidelines on product repair for new models to the public, and allowing consumers to purchase product spare parts.
At least a 5-year Operating System (OS) update after the model is discontinued: Under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), from 20 June 2025, brands need to ensure OS updates at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on the market of the last unit of a product model. Additionally, the EU Cyber Resilience Act (Regulation EU 2024/2847) — the first EU-wide regulation to place cybersecurity obligations on the entire lifecycle of digital products — will also require brands to provide security updates for at least 5 years (or longer). This will be enforced from December 2027.2-year legal warranty: Under the Sales of Goods Directive (2019/771 version), smartphones and other “goods with digital elements” sold by a professional seller in the European Union (EU) are legally required to have a minimum 2-year legal guarantee (also known as a statutory warranty or guarantee of conformity). This warranty is legally binding with the seller of the product, not the manufacturer. In Thailand, consumers only have a commercial warranty from the manufacturer, which is typically 1 year. 7-year access to authorized spare parts after the model is discontinued: Under the ESPR, manufacturers are required to make critical spare parts available within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after the end of sales of the product model on the EU market.Unlike Thailand, some services from brands are available in the EU but not in Thailand: For example, access to the self-repair program and the purchase of spare parts offered by the same brand.
Form a partnership with repair experts to better assess the physical design for product repairability. (Relevant to Criteria 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) Assess the brand’s policy on customer information at the point of sale, regarding their repair rights, support services, and repair guidelines. (Relevant to Criteria 2.3 and 3.2) Consider the availability of local language translation in the development of scoring criteria. (Relevant to Criteria 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2) Conduct customer research to identify the affordable price ranges for common repair services for each product category (instead of only the most expensive one) and incorporate the results into the scoring criteria. (Relevant to Criteria 5.2) Developing the scoring criteria for the affordability of spare parts. (Relevant to Criteria 5.1) Include other data sources from the brand and its partners (e.g., customer services, salespeople, and authorized repair partners). (Relevant to all criteria) Develop and apply a weighting system to prioritize the assessment criteria for each product category. (Relevant to all criteria) Establish a voluntary disclosure period where we reached out to brands and set a period of time for them to voluntarily provide data or share their public data sources that we could use to conduct the assessment. (Relevant to all criteria)
RCTH R-Score
- Pages
Share
Explore
10. Conclusion & Recommendations
10.1 Assessment Summary
Smartphones
Laptops
Jeans
10.2 Result analysis
10.2.1 Legislative pressure matters
The case of electronic devices, both smartphones and laptops, shows why legislative intervention related to repairability is crucial for the right to repair. The reason why we selected some product models of the same global brands was that we wanted to highlight the difference in repairability performance between them. From 2019 onwards, when eco-design and right-to-repair legislation emerged, there is a strong pattern in the repairability improvement of products from the same brand, either in product design (hardware/software) or in the brand’s policies (or even both).
For example
Product design
Product policies
Social movements are the key driver of the legislative changes.
It is important to note that all these legislations were able to emerge and create system changes in our economy was solely because of the decentralized initiatives mobilized by the social movements of various sectors ranging from environmental NGOs, repair technicians, consumer advocates, to local communities (even farmers!). Without them, there would be no legislations as the private sector were not in support of this; some of them even use lobbying power to prolong the development.
However, most of the current legislation related to repairability has progressed within the developed continents, particularly the European Union. While some changes caused by the legislation of the regions also applied to other regions globally, some remain in effect only within the region. The following section shows the gap in the repairability standard between Thailand and the European Union for smartphones.
10.2.2 The double standard in repairability between regions
A case study of smartphones in Thailand and the EU
The table below shows a comparative R-Score assessment of smartphone repairability (in each brand) between the Thai and European contexts under the influence of supportive policies (legal compliance).
Product (Brand & model)
Overall Score (TH)
Overall Score (EU)
Apple 'iPhone 16'
Google (Pixel) 'Pixel 9'
Fairphone 'Fairphone 5'
No results from filter
Key differences
10.3 Reflection: The shortcomings of the current scoring methodology
Despite the insights gained from the assessment, there are seven shortcomings in the scoring methodology that we wish to resolve in the future.
1. The current methodology excludes the physical product design aspect for repairability:
Due to resource limitations, we could not develop a scoring methodology to assess the physical aspect of the product’s repairability. It is not practical in the long run to use iFixit’s Repairability Score as it only covers portable electronic devices, particularly popular brands and models in the US.
2. There is a lack of consumer research on the affordability of repair services for Thai consumers:
For Criteria 5.2, “the affordability of repair services from brands”, we developed the scoring criteria using the paper from the Repair Coalition Europe as the reference (see , Section 7.1.2). It would be great if we could do a cross-comparison with any local research available when developing the scoring criteria next time.
3. The assessment did not cover the brand’s policy at the “point-of-sales”:
We did not cover the brand’s commitment to inform its consumers at the point of sale about their repair rights, support services, and information on repair from the brand. This issue would be relevant to Criteria 2.3 and 3.2.
4. The exclusion of other potential data sources in the assessment:
For the inaugural implementation of the RCTH Repairability Score, the assessment is based on only three sources of publicly available information. These are (1) the brand’s websites and other online channels, (2) online documentation, and (3) the Repairability Score of iFixit. We did not have the capacity to collect data from non-public sources from the brands and their partners. For example, the brand’s customer service and authorized repair partners.
5. The exclusion of the affordability of the spare parts from the assessment:
We exclude the repairability assessment of Criteria 5.1 because we determined that the purchase of authorized spare parts from brands in Thailand is currently not available in general. Furthermore, it is unlikely to find public information from the brands in Thailand. We might have to conduct interviews with them to collect data for the assessment.
6. Brands did not have the opportunity to share information that we might have missed from their public websites, other online channels, or documents:
Despite the thorough data collection from our side, we believe that we should have reached out to the brands, allowing them to share or identify public information that they already provided on their websites, documents, and other online channels, which we might have missed in our data collection process.
7. The methodology currently treats all criteria with equal significance for all product categories:
Although we already excluded the assessment criteria that are not relevant to the repairability for each product category, we have yet to weigh the level of significance across all assessment criteria for each product category. By having a weighting system, we can give priority to the brand’s performance for particular criteria over another in order to highlight and urge brands (in Thailand’s context) to improve their repairability performance on some criteria first.
8. The methodology did not consider the importance of information in the local language:
When assessing the public communication, documents, and statements from brands, we did not consider the availability of local language translation in the scoring criteria.
9. The maximum repair cost was not as insightful as benchmarking the cost of several key repair services:
Using the most expensive repair services as the only scoring criterion for Aspect 5, Criteria 5.2, does not entirely reflect the actual information needed by the consumers, as most broken items are less severe. Instead, we should consider identifying common repair services for each product category
and use the prices for those services to set the scoring criteria.
10.4 Future development for the next version of R-Score’s scoring methodology
Based on the gap analysis above, we propose a list of recommendations for our future R-Score assessment accordingly:
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.