The idea here is to make a clear split between owning and licensing. If the company decides they are selling the items themselves then the items should be repairable by the new owner. If the company decides they are merely selling the rights to use the items then it is reasonable for the user to be unable to repair it, provided the owner (the company) is willing to keep it in working condition.

That should absolutely include wear and tear as well as accidental damage. Intentional damage is an issue, but there shouldn't be much motivation for it under such a system.

That doesn't work for the simple reason that there is no market, therefore there is no way to determine that price. The whole point is essentially that the manufacturer can only have the monopoly on repairs if they are free, if they want to charge for it, they have to allow competition.

As for intentional damage, I think that should not be handled based on costs at all, but simply based on depreciation. Based on normal durability of the device, if you damage the device, you have to pay the remaining value in order to get a new device.

> As for intentional damage, I think that should not be handled based on costs at all, but simply based on depreciation. Based on normal durability of the device, if you damage the device, you have to pay the remaining value in order to get a new device.

I think I'm not understanding your proposal here.

It seems that under such a scheme I could take a $1000 phone that is reasonably expected to last 3 years, intentionally destroy it on day 1, and pay less than a dollar [1/(3*365)] to get a new device. How would manufacturers not be bled dry under such a system?

I think you have it back to front.

Breakage on day 1 would mean replacement at $999...

You're absolutely right. I misread. Thank you.