Regulation requiring manufacturers to supply spare parts, publish repair documentation, and make batteries replaceable has moved from proposal to law in several jurisdictions. Product design is responding.
What the rules require
Broadly: spare parts available for a defined period after a product stops being sold, at reasonable prices. Repair documentation published rather than restricted to authorised partners. Batteries in portable devices replaceable without specialist equipment. Software support for a stated minimum period.
The design consequences
Adhesive is being replaced by fasteners. Components that were bonded together are becoming modular. Devices are getting marginally thicker, which manufacturers resisted for years on the grounds that customers would not accept it. Customers appear not to have noticed.
The subtler change is in component sourcing. A manufacturer required to supply parts for years has an interest in not designing around a chip that will be discontinued, which pushes towards more standard components.
The counter-arguments
Water resistance is the strongest one. Sealed devices survive being dropped in water, and screws and gaskets are a harder path to the same rating. Manufacturers have largely solved this, which suggests the objection was overstated but not baseless.
Cost is the other. A designed-for-repair device costs marginally more to build. Against that, it lasts longer, so the cost per year of use falls.
What buyers get
Longer usable life, mostly through batteries. A phone that becomes unusable at three years because the battery is degraded and replacing it costs a third of a new device is a phone that gets replaced. A twenty-minute battery swap changes that calculation entirely.
What is still missing
Software. A device that is mechanically repairable and no longer receives security updates is still effectively obsolete, and minimum support periods remain shorter than hardware lifetimes. That gap is where the next round of rules is heading.