There are a lot of reasons why the right to repair is important. But what about the other side of the argument? What are the reasons against the right to repair?
1. User Safety
One of the strongest arguments against the right to repair is user safety. Tech today is no longer as simple as it used to be; it has become more complicated, interconnected, and harder to fix by oneself without professional help or expertise. That means you trying to fix your smartphone is not the same as your grandpa trying to fix a cassette player.
Digging into your tech devices yourself can be dangerous as they house combustible materials and sharp metal parts. Any sort of serious mishandling can result in you requiring urgent care. Plus, when user fixes go wrong and hurt the device owner, it can deeply impact a company’s image as their products are then seen as a hazard—similar to what happened with the exploding Samsung Galaxy Note 7.
2. Shrinking Tech
Tech is getting smaller every year, and fixing the intricate hardware is less obvious to the average person. While old tech products were fixable with standard tools that anyone could buy at a local hardware store, modern tech products are smaller and more nuanced in comparison. They often require special tools that are not readily available to everyone and can even require licensing to use.
Of course, some companies take it a step further and intentionally make it harder for people to fix their products. The most notable example of this is Apple using proprietary pentalobe screws in iPhones so that repair shops cannot pry the devices open; they need to be Apple-certified to receive the specialized tools.
3. Efficiency
Modern tech products are designed to be the most efficient they can be in their set form factor. Take smartphones, for example. You have a limited amount of space to try and make the product as good as possible.
Making it more easily repairable would require you to hinder its efficiency from accommodating modulation and repairability. And while you may be okay with that sacrifice, OEMs can’t really afford to do that amid fierce competition where their products are constantly being compared with others.
It’s not uncommon for us as consumers to see benchmark scores to judge a device’s performance and immediately disregard it if it’s below a certain level. This is why compromising on efficiency to make room for repairability is not an easy decision for manufacturers to make.
4. Competition
In a competitive business environment where every customer wants to get the best bang for their buck, it’s not a viable long-term business strategy to make your products more repairable and long-lasting. You’d essentially be cannibalizing your future sales.
If buyers can use your products for years by simply repairing them once in a while, you won’t have any regular inflow of repeat customers. And without recurring customers, you’ll have a hard time trying to generate enough revenue to survive, let alone expand.
While hardware is not in the manufacturer’s control after the product is sold, the software can be manipulated even after the sale. This way, OEMs make profits even if buyers hold on to their devices for longer.
5. Demand and Supply
We saw how making products more repairable makes them less efficient, but the consequences don’t end there. A lesser-known argument against the right to repair simply comes down to basic economics. OEMs can’t release products inferior to their rivals’ and expect their customer base to not react.
As the demand for a commodity drops due to a reduction in quality, its price drops with it because fewer people are willing to buy it. There isn’t enough incentive for sellers to sell that commodity when the price drops due to inadequate profits. There needs to be an equilibrium.
Without it, the competition in the market will reduce and make things worse for consumers as they’ll be forced to buy products from a select few businesses that managed to survive—depriving them of their freedom of choice. Ultimately, this game of dominos ends up hurting the consumer.
6. No Incentive to Innovate
We know that tech gets cheaper and better over time due to economies of scale and innovation, but that principle rests on one fundamental assumption: there is enough incentive for manufacturers to consider taking on the risk and costs of R&D.
The reason OEMs constantly push for new bleeding-edge tech is because they have a clear advantage to do so. In a world where people don’t upgrade their gadgets frequently and are used to repairing them, innovation will be left as an afterthought instead of being a priority.
After all, if you as a manufacturer don’t see any benefit in innovating because no one is going to buy those new products anyway, why bother taking on the financial risk and betting your company’s survival on it? Better to just keep things the way they are, right?
The Right to Repair Won’t Fix Everything
Ultimately, the purpose of the right to repair is to reduce waste and carbon emissions to slow down climate change. While there is no golden solution to fix everything instantly, things can be done to help the cause.
One obvious solution is to increase the use of recycled materials in the manufacturing process. A fair number of brands already do so, and the more, the better. But again, there needs to be a clear incentive (or governmental obligation) for OEMs to use recycled parts over brand new ones.
Another interesting solution is to bring more standardization in tech. For instance, making all consumer electronics USB-C compatible seems like a great start. We saw how the EU is pushing for the same and how tech reviewers support this decision.
One way you can help is by spreading the word and supporting creators like Louis Rossmann, who endorse the right to repair. Small increments like this go a long way to help the cause and make a positive change.
