So if our goal is to prolong the lifecycle of consumer electronics, then repairability isn’t a necessary metric.
If regulators instead went after service pricing abuse, that would force companies like Apple to drive down their repair prices—which might force them to design their hardware in a more modular manner, but not necessarily, so that if it becomes negligibly cheap to manufacture and replace the entire part of a less modular architecture, then they still have the freedom to design electronics in a less modular architecture. Repairability, considering the arbitrariness of the level of modularity that it stops, really does seem like a constraint on innovation.
User-serviceability is another unnecessary requirement, in my opinion, and in this regard, regulators can go after service availability. Electronics manufacturers who insist on tight integration of their products should make their repair services highly available, which seems like a fair trade-off.
The most obvious option to me seems to be price controls, which historically have been a very blunt instrument and as far as I know, most economists recommend against them.
Err… it doesn’t have to be price controls? It could be as simple as an investigation to their pricing strategy and seeing whether the markup is obscene or not. Of course what is obscene is relative, but that’s why you investigate, so that you can see abuse on a case-to-case basis.
Also, how is this level of regulatory inspection invasive? The architectural tight integration almost guarantees that the device manufacturer has a monopoly on servicing their products—it’s just that the monopoly is being allowed because it’s the kind that allows for innovation. The regulatory crackdown would be fair and justifiable.
Now that is moving the goalpost, and hard. A senate inquiry or a class action suit (that Apple doesn’t have to lose by the way) is not how “price control” is defined, and even if such cases swing in the way of consumers, there’s no general rule that specifies how much Apple should lower their service pricing.
If regulators instead went after service pricing abuse, that would force companies like Apple to drive down their repair prices—which might force them to design their hardware in a more modular manner, but not necessarily, so that if it becomes negligibly cheap to manufacture and replace the entire part of a less modular architecture, then they still have the freedom to design electronics in a less modular architecture. Repairability, considering the arbitrariness of the level of modularity that it stops, really does seem like a constraint on innovation.
User-serviceability is another unnecessary requirement, in my opinion, and in this regard, regulators can go after service availability. Electronics manufacturers who insist on tight integration of their products should make their repair services highly available, which seems like a fair trade-off.