[chin7an]

I am still squeezing life out of my mid-2012 MacBook Pro and am very much pro right-to-repair. But given the complexity of professional DSLR cameras, and Apple laptops since I gave that example, I have to question my own belief that these decisions are purely profit/shareholder-value driven. There has to be something else at play here, maybe someone familiar with the high-tech manufacturing process can shed some light.

Alternatively, what stops these companies from offering technical education on repairing their products, and allowing the graduates to setup their own repair businesses? I don't think it's sustainable to keep forcing customers to pay up for $2k+ laptops or cameras every 3-4 years.

[Daishiman]

It's entirely a business decision that's profit-driven.

There's nothing technically limiting these manufacturers from making reparable devices. It may extend their development cycle by a month or more for a product though, as they need to settle on standardized parts, keep stock of materials for repair, produce readable manuals, and make alterations to make components accessible.

It is not in their interest to make any of this available, and it is entirely in their interest at the same time to discourage repairability, through marketing of new products and suppression of right-to-repair movements.

Ironically, a right-to-repair law would at least put everyone on equal ground as far as having to comply to a minimum standard. But tragedy of the commons and all that.

[chin7an]

Agree on the right-to-repair putting players on a common ground.

Thinking more on this, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out for Nikon. They have serious competition from Canon, Sony and others and if they keep their repairs open, Nikon will just end up hurting themselves in the long-run.

Apple on the other hand, is in a much safer position. There is no real competitor when it comes to macOS and so they can make these profit-driven decisions without any serious consequences.

I'd like to point out that when I say "no real competition" to macOS, I don't mean it's better than Windows or Linux. Rather, people who prefer macOS will keep using it, just like people who prefer Windows will keep using it. The force required to make them move to a different platform, change your entire workflow etc, is, in my opinion, much higher than switching cameras. Yes, changing the glass costs a small-fortune, but you have adapters, and image formats are standards.

[neuralRiot]

>Nikon will just end up hurting themselves in the long-run.

IMHO tis is a desperate move from Nikon to increase profit, which might work in the short run but might mean it’s death, i’m a “prosumer” photog and after long years and lots of money in gear last year i decided to switch to sony mirrorless getting new gear in the process, Nikon used to be great some time ago and even having on-site techs giving tech support and repairs at big events where lots of press where working, whenever you needed a part you just call an 1-800 number and in a few days you had them shipped. Now you need to risk shipping your gear to most likely be returned to you ater a month with a non-repairable note and the charges for the service. Sad to see you going down Nikon.

[foxyv]

It seems like a lot of these anti-third party repair initiatives are to support the sales of extended warranties. A lot of companies can make 10-20% or above the sale cost of their item by selling these warranties.

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/ni/NI_article?articleNo=0000...

[danielfoster]

For DSLRs most repairs will honestly be a shutter or LCD replacement. These aren’t complicated at all.

Camera technology is constantly improving but not as rapidly as processors. You can buy a 5-10 year old professional model camera for $500 that beats any new entry-level gear.

My guess is Nikon wants to eliminate the used market for its products.

[slezyr]

Or batteries, which have DRM module in them.