> Customers genuinely do not care about the repair of these products.

If customers knew that a cracked smartphone screen could be replaced for 30$ and a dead battery for 10$ at the local shop down the street, do you really think they would put up with the current state of affairs, paying five or ten times as much?

People aren't stupid, they know the shops exist and the risk associated with third party repair. It's not first party manufacturers or government's job to mitigate that risk or convince people its acceptable for the price - that's the job of the repair shop.

They aren't stupid, but they don't often have any good reason to know such shops exist or that their specific problem (e.g. phone dies quickly after charging) can be quickly and cheaply fixed at such a place and doesn't require purchasing the latest and greatest iDevice. In the last year I've taught a half-dozen non-technical acquaintances that such shops exist, and they all opted for the repair route instead of a new phone.

A lot of the risks are caused by the status-quo. There are indeed more risks if the devices are built not to be repaired (adhesive vs reusable fasteners, serialized parts so unknown software of dubious origin has to be used to reprogram them, etc) than if the devices were built with repairability in mind.

They'll put up with more than they need to in order to run whatever plops out of Apple.

Go ahead and try getting your friends to use a pinephone where both of these "repairs" are trivialy doable by the end user.

People will take out loans just to run snapchat and iMessage.

Yes.

Apathy is an expression of helplessness. Consumers rightfully understand they have virtually no power over whether companies make do things like make products impossible to repair. This is a problem to be fixed at the level of government.

They can buy devices that are easier to repair. Shops can refuse to accept devices that they can't repair. Consumers aren't sheep, and I don't believe in legislation predicated on the assumption that they act like bovine.

I'm all for regulating tech companies, but not when it harms their ability to create products that fit market demands. When it comes to market demands today, repair-ability is at odds with other areas that companies innovate like device complexity, size, form factor, etc.

There is little market pressure for repairable devices. I don't think it's the role of government to create it. The most compelling argument I've heard relates to recycling and reducing landfill usage of electronics. But I'm not sure what levers government can pull in that regard that make repair easier.

The incentive for companies is to design products that are obsolete after a few years, such that they can sell a new one and make money on the new sale. While it's beneficial for customers to be able to repair their devices, their choices are limited by the availability of repairable devices.

The government has plenty of levers to use to improve repairability and reducing the amount of discarded electronics. They could mandate a minimum service life for electronics, where the manufacturer has to repair or replace any device that fails during that service life, for free, as long as the repair isn't due to customer negligence. They could mandate having a serviceability score label on electronics, just like the energy star rating or nutritional information label. They could require that manuals and parts are available to third party repair shops, without discriminatory pricing and availability. The list goes on.

It's not unlike fuel efficiency and clean air mandates. Once all the manufacturers had to abide by the same rules, unsurprisingly, fleet efficiency and air quality improved.