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.
