I hope we get a "right to repair" law in EU, where the seller is required by law to provide repairability services next to their regular warranties. That means that, as a seller, you must provide a service to repair (and replacement parts) for "reasonable" prices for anything you sell.

For example, if you're selling notebooks, you must be able to provide notebook parts and repair as well for the products you sell.

Context: Imagine dropping your macbook and the screen breaks; You must be able to get it replaced for a "reasonable" price and you must be able to buy a replacement screen to repair it yourself. The seller must provide these services (either by delegating it to a repair or repairing it themselves)

Maintainability is a feature, so to speak. Another option would be to purchase the product that best fits your needs, including warranty, repair, parts, upgrading, etc.

If Brand A decides it's best to not provide Feature X and you __need__ Feature X, then you can decide that Brand A isn't for you.

If anything should be legislated it should be publishing the details about warranty coverage, average cost or repair, most common repairs, as well as turnaround times. Then, with that info, let the consumer make the decision that best fits them.

> Maintainability is a feature, so to speak.

Yes, but lets be clear, this is not lack of maintainability... this is very clearly _anti_maintainability, there is a big difference.

There is nothing inherent to the hardware design here that makes replacing components impossible, just the addition of this one chip for the single purpose of preventing it.

And it's not surprising, we all know Apple's position on Unofficial or user repair options.

As a "consumer" who develops iOS apps, what alternative choice to a mac can I make? With monopolies that tend to crop up these days, the phrase that customers have a choice rings hollow.

Today? Few. However, in doing this, Apple is creating opportunity - provided the market wants an alternative.

That being said, the arc of my point is, that if there's going to be legislation it should start with information that enables the consumer, not inject Uncle Sam into another problem that it's unprepared and unable to solve.

> you must be able to provide notebook parts and repair as well for the products you sell

You’re proposing commanding companies to erect and maintain new and complex supply chains and packaging schemes. It’s a well-meaning proposal. But it will be costly. That will deter new entrants and increase prices in your market. Do this many times from different perspectives and you end up with a towering bureaucracy and sclerotic economy.

But if "the nature of the goods" required them to ship the laptop to Apple to have a diagnostic run after the repair, and that takes a few weeks?

It doesn't, though. There is nothing fundamental to the concept of a laptop that requires lengthy, licensed repair. That's the point of the law--you're allowed to be realistic about your product's needs, you're not allowed to deliberately make it harder than it has to be, so you can corner the repair market.