> I am also a developer for electronic devices. And devices with more features usually sell better, since every costumer thinks: Rather I pay a little more, for the case I need the better Camera, an AI-Chip or so. I think this is a good point too. I think myself and others are not oblivious that the normie user "doesn't care" about repair-ability, they'd rather have the shiny new features. However Id suggest this is not exactly true. If you told the user at the time of purchase: "You can have the shiny new feature set BUT, it's probably going to become unusable in 2 years and you'll have to throw it away and spend another $1000 to do this again" I'd be willing to be those statistics would be lower. I could be totally wrong on that, and I'd be quite depressed if that was true. So what I'm suggesting is that, modern uses trust that a convenience given to them in the past, will remain (because they didn't know they had it) with the new device, and they simply have the bonus of better features. They say "I'll take that risk" because it's realized not up front. I'm suggesting it's due to conditioning of selling higher quality products that didn't harvest user data. Now the cost of privacy, for example, is unrealized.