> People purchased items that they cannot repair, for myriad reasons
The primary reason being that they are 97% of the available items, forcing any repair shop to get by through fixing the 3%. This results in a tug-of-war between repair shops being too far away (fewer of them) or too expensive, closing in on the price of a new disposable item.
Right-to-fix isn't about me being an expert on how to fix things, it's about me being able to get things fixed by someone other than the manufacturer. This increases the number of repairmen, which increases the attractiveness of repairable items in a virtuous circle.
edit: also in a lot of these manufacturer repair situations you're talking about mailing the item somewhere, not walking to a store and walking out with a new one. A world in which you arrive at a familiar repair shop, they transfer your data to a loner phone, and you get your phone back in a day or two and rsync the diff back - that doesn't sound radically different for the customer than the status quo, just radically cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
> it's about me being able to get things fixed by someone other than the manufacturer
Right, it is about manufacturers being in a monopolistic position to dictate after sales service, sales of spares, etc. When manufactures gain control over the after sales service they essentially double-dip—they benefit from both the profit from the sale as well as the after sales service.
When manufacturers turn after sales service with them from being optional to compulsory, they are effectively adding a rent factor to their product. There are several issues here:
(a) Monopoly laws should be strengthened to stop such practices. This would effectively force a return to the past status quo where it was accepted practice for third parties to repair equipment/supply spares etc.
(b) If that is not possible—that's to say that copyright, patent and contract law cannot be changed and thus permit this situation to continue—then in my opinion it should be unlawful for the seller not to make this fact fully clear to the buyer/owner upfront.
(c) It follows that it should be unlawful for manufactures to lock out users or repairers with electronic locks that prevent them maintaining their equipment and or using spares and consumables supplied by third parties (for instance, printer manufacturers locking out ink cartridges from third party suppliers).
(d) Moreover, it should be unlawful for manufacturers/sellers to force conditions of sale or use onto the buyer/user that would permit them (the manufacturers) to gather data about the consumption of spares, consumables, ways of use or application, owners' names and other personal data without explicit permission of the buyer/owner. (It should be noted that manufacturers are not paying users for this information). Such a change in the law would again only return us to the status quo before the on-line era.
It is not only the 'ownership' of tractors where users experience these problems; they are appearing everywhere these days. For example, again, printer manufactures engage in blatant and outrageous price gouging for ink consumables (where the price of ink per ounce approaches that of expensive perfumes).
The primary reason being that they are 97% of the available items, forcing any repair shop to get by through fixing the 3%. This results in a tug-of-war between repair shops being too far away (fewer of them) or too expensive, closing in on the price of a new disposable item.
Right-to-fix isn't about me being an expert on how to fix things, it's about me being able to get things fixed by someone other than the manufacturer. This increases the number of repairmen, which increases the attractiveness of repairable items in a virtuous circle.
edit: also in a lot of these manufacturer repair situations you're talking about mailing the item somewhere, not walking to a store and walking out with a new one. A world in which you arrive at a familiar repair shop, they transfer your data to a loner phone, and you get your phone back in a day or two and rsync the diff back - that doesn't sound radically different for the customer than the status quo, just radically cheaper and more environmentally friendly.