Maintainability is a feature, so to speak. Another option would be to purchase the product that best fits your needs, including warranty, repair, parts, upgrading, etc.
If Brand A decides it's best to not provide Feature X and you __need__ Feature X, then you can decide that Brand A isn't for you.
If anything should be legislated it should be publishing the details about warranty coverage, average cost or repair, most common repairs, as well as turnaround times. Then, with that info, let the consumer make the decision that best fits them.
Yes, but lets be clear, this is not lack of maintainability... this is very clearly _anti_maintainability, there is a big difference.
There is nothing inherent to the hardware design here that makes replacing components impossible, just the addition of this one chip for the single purpose of preventing it.
And it's not surprising, we all know Apple's position on Unofficial or user repair options.
As a "consumer" who develops iOS apps, what alternative choice to a mac can I make? With monopolies that tend to crop up these days, the phrase that customers have a choice rings hollow.
Today? Few. However, in doing this, Apple is creating opportunity - provided the market wants an alternative.
That being said, the arc of my point is, that if there's going to be legislation it should start with information that enables the consumer, not inject Uncle Sam into another problem that it's unprepared and unable to solve.
If Brand A decides it's best to not provide Feature X and you __need__ Feature X, then you can decide that Brand A isn't for you.
If anything should be legislated it should be publishing the details about warranty coverage, average cost or repair, most common repairs, as well as turnaround times. Then, with that info, let the consumer make the decision that best fits them.