I think there's a difference between not having the skills to repair it and being prevented by some arbitrary barrier put up by the manufacturer. I can't repair my car's engine, but that's just because it's complicated and I don't have the skills. That's different than if the car manufacturer requires that a code that only licensed repair shops have must be entered into the car's software, otherwise when I open the engine casing (I don't know if that's actually a thing, but substitute real car repair words as you please) the car stops working.
A standard that says you can make products as complex as you want, but you can't do things specifically intended for the sole purpose of blocking repairs seems fine to me.
> I think there's a difference between not having the skills to repair it and being prevented by some arbitrary barrier put up by the manufacturer.
I'd go a step further and state that repairability is a design trait. The amount of skill you need to repair a product is the output of a design requirement. Case in point: only a few of us have woodworking skills, but every single one of us can easily put together a Ikea table, because that was Ikea's design goal.
The only reason any ebike might be hard to repair is if the company that designed it wanted the bike to be hard to repair. Simple as that.
This is similar to what Bob Martin (Uncle Bob) has said about software testing - something that is hard to test is badly designed. In this case something that is hard to repair is badly designed. As you point out, you have to design for repairability, it doesn't just happen.
I’m not sure it’s “bad” so much as it’s a dark design pattern.
Apple loves that they can sell apple care plans and encourage consumers back into apple stores when their by design not durable phones get damaged.
But this is basically the industry's line. That skill and the right tools are required, otherwise a substandard repair is performed. And for some products that is dangerous.
And the industry will simultaneously complain that it would be too burdensome to make tools and documentation available so someone with the right skills can do it properly.
To that I say the burden of proof is on them to prove significant danger to the public.
Automobiles are probably the most dangerous product ever produced by mankind. We have a whole century behind us during which people were allowed to repair their automobiles. Independent mechanics are still commonplace today and many non-professionals still choose to repair their own vehicles.
That sets a precident. Manufacturers should at least have to prove that indpendent repairs of their product represent a more significant threat than independent automobile repair. Otherwise, their arguments about safety should be dismissed.
My take is that the tools should be available and the product not locked down such that only 1 blessed supplier or repair place can service.
So long as competitors can arise in the repair space beyond the manufacturer, then there’s a sliver of hope that pressures against monopoly repair.
This only induces product design that is remotely repairable, vs always discard, at high enough price points that refurbished or secondary market can command value.
I struggle to see how lower priced items could have “be repairable” as some enforceable tenant absent a standards group which always trend toward incumbents and reduced innovation.
A standard that says you can make products as complex as you want, but you can't do things specifically intended for the sole purpose of blocking repairs seems fine to me.