Suppose you ship a website and some people get used to being able to edit the javascript code that you ship there to fix and improve things. You then introduce

Suppose you ship a website and some people get used to being able to edit the javascript code that you ship there to fix and improve things. You then introduce a build step in your deploy process which starts to obfuscate and minify your js. Users start complaining that they can no longer easily fiddle with the js. Why should you compromise your development choices in any way to accommodate an accidental feature that you never intended or promised to your users? It is certainly possible that companies make specific design decisions purely to limit third party repairability, but it does not seem correct to force all devices to be repairable. There are many domains, cell phones being one of them, where a lot of normal fit and finish decisions that are made in order to ship competitive products end up having the side-effect of limiting repairability. Do phones need to be so thin and rigid? Maybe not, but the competing phones are so yours must be too. There seems to be lots of sales pressure on looks and feel and almost no sales pressure on repairability, can you blame these companies for giving people what they are actually paying for instead of what some say they would pay for?