But do note, products should be made reliable, to have long life, and without planned obsolescence. This is totally orthogonal to being repairable, and making a product less repairable tends to open doors for making the product otherwise better - including more reliable.
I don't agree, making something repairable doesn't make it unreliable or give it less lifespan. Can you give an example of where you think that is true?
Example: modular design to allow repairs by replacing modules: now there are connectors which not only increase cost, but also can fail. Also each module is now more complex, may need their own power supplies etc. Given products have some price target, savings on the connectors alone would enable buying better quality electrolytic capacitors, and size savings due to better integration would improve cooling.
Making something repairable doesn't mean it has to be modularized so anyone on minimum wage and no skill can do it by replacing modules.
I think it maybe a terminality interpretation issue.
The right to repair isn't really about forcing manufactures to make drastic or costly changes to their products just to make them repairable. It's more about manufacturers acknowledging that repair is something that exists and being mindful not to make things unduly hard to repair when they don't need to be.
Everything is and always will be 'repairable' it's just a matter of time, skills needed and cost.
The issue I have is when products are intentionally made uneconomical to repair for no reason other than to make them uneconomical to repair. Or maybe where they have been made uneconomical to repair for a stupid reason that would have been trivial to not do when the device was designed/manufactured.
It's understandable that choices need to be made when designing a product and some of those choices will make the product less repairable. But those choices should have a valid reason.