Yeah, it's kind of a joke to say that there's no problem with the "free market" in the American version of capitalism when all the big players collude on the same anti-consumer position, because they all win, and their execs take home more options and pay because of it.

No I think that's simply because that's actually what consumers want.

The less a company makes on maintenance and repairs, the more it has to make on the initial sale, which means a higher upfront cost. People generally don't like paying a lot of money upfront, so naturally, companies will make profit in other ways.

Easy to see with smartphones. When manufacturers started to make batteries non user replaceable, did it make consumers flock to manufacturers that still offered user replaceable batteries? The answer is no, consumers have chosen, they don't care, except for a minority too small for manufacturers to need caring. There are alternatives, like the Fairphone, but it is not a mainstream device, and it is expensive for its specs, so few people buy it.

Not only it is our choice, but we are not even honest about it. We are happy to buy hard-to-repair devices, but then, we want to game the system by using regulation.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of the right to repair movement. But I also understand that it will go against the will of consumers by raising the prices. It is a bit like safety and the environment. We don't want cars with emission control, because they are more expensive and have more points of failure, but we are forced to buy them anyways, and it is good for all of us in the end. I think the right to repair is good for the environment and for the economy in general, so it is worth regulating.