>
Thank you for disclosing that you fight such legislation. "disclosing"
What's there to hide about doing my duty as a citizen to work to make my country a better place?
>I don't know if that means you're a lawyer for Apple or another firm that is fighting Right to Repair.
I don't know if ignoring all my specific arguments entirely and immediately jumping to conspiracy crap means you're a shill for iFixit or the like but the rules of HN ask that everyone assumes good faith as the default position, and those are good rules for an online discussion. Guessing that perhaps you instead just have a very strong emotional connection to the act of tinkering and "repairing" perhaps, FWIW I strongly empathize with you. I absolutely know the feeling of wanting to mess around with things at a lower level then is "normal" and am both upset and threatened feeling by the idea that might get closed down more and more. Nevertheless each specific case needs to be weighed on its merits and the physical violence of the State is a very big hammer to wield. For those of us living in a democracy it is our duty to question and pick at suggestions to do so every single time, even if ultimately we come to agree.
>As a consumer, I am for repairability.
As a consumer I am for reasonable universal expectations of guaranteed lifespan with that built right into the sticker price so that the market can properly function. I absolutely do not think "repairability" is a goal in and of itself to the exclusion of all else, and think that legislating such would hurt consumers.
>Maybe my perspective would be different if my annual bonus depended on increasing the number of units sold every year.
Or maybe your perspective would be different if you considered opposing arguments with rigor and intellectual honesty rather then slimy insinuations and personal attacks? That is the behavior you just engaged in and frankly it's ridiculous, particularly since we both are (apparently?) in favor of enhanced consumer protection. For root's sake, think about what you are actually saying: I specifically called for a legal requirement of something that'd amount to a full warranty with government mandated performance requirements for a period of a minimum of 2 years and going up to 5 years and then ALSO possibly a paid repair/replace requirement after that. This would essentially nuke the enormously profitable extended warranty market just for starters, force companies to internalize public expectations and costs, and you think that's something big corps would be in favor of?? Really?