>Sorry but I don't think they are realistic at all.

Not complete, but I think they outline some general ideas that would be useful for most customers.

[1]

>Maybe someone would want to have a product that doesn't allow 3rdparty repairs?

Perhaps, but I don't see how you could ever possibly stop that from happening. Even with Apple's very tight control over the repair market, repairs are still made to their laptops, phones, etc. When you buy from the second hand market, all bets are off. If you own the device from new and it is from the manufacturer, you can guarantee that repairs are carried out how you want them.

>Medical equipment, weapons, devices used in expensive mass transit like planes, I'd say to leave repairs of those to the proper companies.

Again, if you want to make those guarantees, you would have "trusted" re-seller markets or purchase new. Hell, go a step further, have the devices pulled apart and manually checked for their fitness for purpose.

On the other hand, one only needs to look at an iron lung or an old military device needing restoration to realized why the right to repair is important even in those cases. Manufacturers can die, parts can go out of production and manufacturers may not always be incentivized to make the right repair (for example in cases where the right repair costs them money).

[2]

>In such case, if I never own the MacBook with a design fault, but I will need the cheaper part, why should I pay more so you can buy your expensive part cheaper?

The parts would be cheaper for everybody by forcibly locking in the cost of replacement parts. One would expect that the replacement parts in total not cost more than a multiplier of the original retail price of the device. For example, it shouldn't be more expensive to replace a part of a machine that to buy one new.

[3]

>Isn't it cheaper and produces devices that have less moving parts? It allows quicker assembly and allows automatization during production so again, cheaper devices.

Yes it is. So is making use-once e-cigarettes. Electronic waste is a massive problem and should not be encouraged at any level. Manufacturers of expensive devices should make said devices fixable. Most of Apple's competitors somehow manage to build devices with screws whilst delivering on a lower price, so I don't believe for a moment Apple is incapable of also doing so.

[4]

>Again, more costs. The customer will pay for those costs, not the company. The devices will be more expensive.

A well known secret: The devices are priced to be a multiplier of the customers annual disposable income. Besides, devices being slightly more expensive but being more repairable is a good trade off.

[5]

>I have no idea how anyone would be able to pass the law that already knows what part will break in a new device in the day of bringing this device to the market.

Parts have an expected life time. Most vehicles have an expected life time of 10 years. Depressingly, mobile phones are ~1/2 years. Other than some agreed degradable parts, such as batteries which depend on charge habits, one wouldn't expect the processor to give out in less than 1/2 years with normal use. If it did, it would point towards a design flaw. Of course not all design flaws can be seen before production, but these can be reduced with better prior testing and more easily replaceable internals.

[6]

>What about vehicle crash sensors? Hard disk sudden motion sensor?

In both cases, there is either damage or there isn't. If a vehicle crashes and there is absolutely no damage at all - what's the difference? Of course this calls on better testing of devices being returned, but this should be the case anyway. It shouldn't be that difficult to build a bed of nails to send out to repair centers to test whether a motherboard is damaged.

--

>The problem when a user tries to think of new laws is always the same, those laws only address user's problem and nothing more. Just please, leave the law alone, imagine it's kernel mode programming and you're a web designer.

This is a very poor attitude to have. We should be having open discussions about everything - who knows where the next best idea will come from. Elitism usually turns out bad.