I see the E.U. fixing this issue to some extent within the next 5-10 years. It's a small loss for Apple and other computer makers compared to the big wins for E.U. governments and citizens, lowering emissions and lowering costs on computer hardware for both the private and public sectors.
It all depends on the wording of the initiative. Preventing companies from imposing arbitrary restrictions that pessimise the customer is good and right. At the same time, passing arbitrary rules that stint technological innovation and force manufacturers to build inferior products in the name of some dubious ideology is not that good. And I don't really trust the EU legislators (or any legislator) on this, since a lot of the proposed laws seem to be very far from the technological reality in my eyes.
Let me give you an example. Imagine the law specifically mandates that RAM should be modular. This would immediately rule out usage of high-performance or energy-efficient solutions which are not modular for engineering reasons. It would also constraint the form factor and device size. And it would pretty much kill important innovations like in-memory processing (that will be required for future ML applications) or more integrated solutions. But what's more, how would this kind of regulation even work? How do you define what "RAM" is? Does it means that GPU memory also needs to be modular? What about CPU cache memory? What about RAM used as cache on consume SSDs? Where do you stop here?
Or let's say you mandate that persistent storage (SSD/HDD) should be replaceable. How do you define that? What if some manufacturer comes up with a new storage system that is super fast and super durable, but making it modular would impose a major additional cost in terms of money, power, and footprint? Dows this legislation also mandate that all parts have to use industry standard interfaces? What if you have a product that cannot be reasonably supported using a standard interface? Does this means such a product would be illegal?
Here is an example of a legislation I would support:
1) If a device uses industry standard internal connectors, the respective equipment should be user-upgradeable and user-replaceable
2) If a computer model is sold in X different configurations, the user has the right to have it's machine upgraded or replaced to a different configuration for a fee at any time while these configurations are on the market
3) Reasonable minimal device support timeframes (e.g. 8 years from purchase) where a repair cannot be denied
Another legislation I would love to see is this (essentially what Apple does with AppleCare):
1) Every manufacturer is obliged to offer a hardware insurance, capped to some reasonable price point (e.g. 3% of the original device price per year)
2) A user who intends to use the machine past the official warranty period has the option to purchase this insurance as subscription; if the device fails it is the responsibility of the original manufacturer to repair or replace it free of charge
3) The hardware insurance is valid until canceled, at least up to certain duration as mandated by the law (e.g. 8 years from the original device purchase)
4) A user who does not purchase the insurance is not entitled to a repair outside of the warranty period (it is up to the manufacturer to offer this as an additional service)
What I like about the second one is that it gives the manufacturers incentive for designing repairable and reliable hardware, does not restrict innovation, and lets the customers support each other solidarily.
Of course, such legislation has no chance of passing, because what most Right to Repair advocates care about is low cost of ownership and not sustainability of innovation.
