You are not talking about repair but about replacement of components and a relatively limited set of them at that.

I too have many times undertaken such activities as you mention. That alters nothing. Things change. Much has changed since my first 16k computer.

In my original comment to which you responded, it was very clear that I consider that there are unfortunate changes in accessibility to Apple products in some areas that I believe are problematic.

I am well aware of the material circulating concerning ‘right to repair’ and don’t utilise YouTube as a reliable or authoritative source for accurate and expert analysis of anything. That is not to say that sensible and accurate information can’t be found there but, in the same way that the average Google search produces far more dross than sense, it is no better than the average word-of-mouth opinion spouted by friends over a few too many drinks.

However, that is in any event another issue and not at all as clear as is made out by many of its proponents. There are some aspects, as I’ve implied above, with which I am in complete agreement. There are others which I consider far too limited and which fail to consider a whole raft of factors, some of which I mentioned in my previous response to you.

I know categorically that you cannot “…order the parts to repair any part of it”. As I’ve indicated above, you are not speaking of repair but of replacement.

Your assertion that “Apple chooses to make their systems to do that with”, leaving aside its grammatical clumsiness, cannot be supported with any degree of certainty. Perhaps Apple do that and perhaps they don’t. My own estimation is that it is simplistic and silly to think that they make design decisions based on motivation to disadvantaging and frustrating potential or actual clients. Such assertions are typical of the puerile diatribes of the dyed in the wool ‘Apple haters’.

My view is that if one wants to achieve change then there will be more probability of success if one mounts a well structured argument that considers all determinable factors, positive and negative, related to the issue. Sadly, more often than not, knee-jerk reactions that consider only what suits the complainant are what is presented as rational argument. When that is the case I wouldn’t blame anyone being petitioned for failing to be moved.