Reasonable people are sometimes lead to believe that repairability is counter to safety (i.e. "if an amature does the repair wrong, they could hurt themselves

Reasonable people are sometimes lead to believe that repairability is counter to safety (i.e. "if an amature does the repair wrong, they could hurt themselves or the owner"), security (i.e. "if we let people know how it works, it'll be easier to hack"), technilogical advancement (i.e. "smartphones would have to be chunky bricks with no water resistance if we designed them to be easily opened for repair"), consumer protection (i.e. "unauthorized repair technicians are unaccountable and might do something unscrupulous to your device"), value (i.e. "if companies have to design for repair and provide support for repair, then those costs get passed onto consumers"), among other things. I don't find these arguments compelling and I think there is plenty of precedent for repairability being best for consumers. But they come up a lot - especially from anti-R2R lobbiests. Our society has also been trained to be consumers, always throwing away old stuff in favor of the latest and greatest. When something breaks, the first thought is usally "how much will it cost to replace this?" instead of "how do I fix it?" Everything is treated as disposible, so there isn't much motivation for the average person to care about repair.