This specific bill was just about access to repair information and the ability to use third-party repair facilities. However, the Right to Repair organization s

This specific bill was just about access to repair information and the ability to use third-party repair facilities. However, the Right to Repair organization specifically lists on their policy goals (https://www.repair.org/policy https://www.repair.org/policy): > Products should be designed to have their lifespan extended by regular maintenance and repair. > Design: Integrate Design for Repair principles into eco-design product design practices. And I have seen Right to Repair efforts that demanded repairable devices, even if that meant more bulk or more cost, or other tradeoffs. Framework and similar efforts have demonstrated that it's possible to build a repairable device that people actually like, without compromising too much on other factors. But until those substantial engineering efforts had been put in, this seemed like a fundamental tradeoff between two sets of somewhat-incompatible properties consumers may want, and should be able to choose between. (It's still a tradeoff insofar as devices providing repairability don't provide all the features available from other devices.)