Only sort of kidding, tbh having bots service themselves (and being intentionally made in a way that they can service each other) just makes a lot of sense.
We're not there yet, but I think we're a lot closer than most people realize.
It almost feels like "A robot shall not autonomously build or repair another robot" should have been another of Asimov's laws.
I am trying to understand in your view what are the parts that actually breaks and what kind of improvement we would need.
Passing on what I have heard from robotics researchers at lunch conversations.
My impression is that any moving part that is not an electric motor or an hinge breaks.
Human arms and hands are incredibly intricate. Reproducing their facility with hardware requires a large number of actuators and finicky fine parts. This isn't a software problem. Industry solves it with maintenance schedules.
There's probably nothing in your house that has as many moving parts as a robot needs. Your car maybe, and pretty much all it does is rotate wheels.
That's not the case. I've seen folding robots. They require standardized input, only fold one type of clothing and don't do it reliably.
We can build robots that do the things you want. Arrange a visit to Amazon's robot warehouse tour.
We can't ship them because they break all the time with current technology. It would be a tough sell to have to being in a 100kg robot for servicing every few weeks.
This was cars in the first several decades of automobiles. The tide shifted as soon as you could just drive the car to a neighborhood dealership for servicing. It's fun to imagine the logistics of that for robots but the material science and engineering has to advance a bit.