>
This issue extends beyond electronics as well. People often throw away clothes once they "go out of fashion," which these days happens exceptionally quickly. The same applies to furniture, appliances, and other consumer goodsThis deserves a 'in the first world' caveat. Most waste streams terminate in the not-first world. There's a reason there are so many photos of African and SE Asian markets full of a hodgepodge of mobile device and English-printed t-shirts.
Which is to say, increasing repairability shouldn't just be measured by how likely the first world is to use it, but also to how useful it would be to downstream consumers.
To your list, there is a critical caveat to my caveat though: weight and volume.
Things like appliances (small motor, big bulky box) and furniture (bulky) are exceptions to the above, given their difficulty to efficiency ship en masse.
> I don't agree [consumer tendency to replace over repair] is primarily due to a lack of repair options or difficulty accessing repairs. In many cases, the means to repair these products already exist, but consumers simply choose to replace them instead.
It's a gradient, like all things. Repair has difficulty and cost. Policies (like this one) could be enacted which decrease that difficulty and cost. Are they worth it?
> cost-to-benefit or cost-to-regulation
Which gets to the measuring. My suspicion is that most HN commenters (myself included) are weighing from placing a high value on 'owning your own tools' which may not generalize to the populace.
But even so, I think it's a valid question of whether society would be 'better' if people had more ownership of their devices. Versus the current outsourcing to the mercy of Google / Huawei / Samsung / Vivo / Xioami / Apple.