While I agree with your premise, your examples need work. You could actually use items that were 1. at one time more repairable and 2. benefit greatly from the evolution of smaller, faster, higher density tech that negates some of the repairability. Our phones are a perfect example. Tablets are another. Flash/thumb drives were never in the repairability realm.
Phones are still repairable though.. maybe not every single component, but then again almost nothing is repairable to every individual component. Additionally, in many cases, repairing is more expensive than replacing because of the labor involved. So now you have to argue that it would be beneficial to pay lower wages so that repairing made economical sense.
A few examples of things that don't need as much repairing on phones is below:
- Extendable Antennas (These used to break and need repairing, but we no longer have these)
- Flipping Mechanisms (These used to break after over use/extended use, but they no longer exist)
- Sliding Mechanisms (Same concept as the flipping)
Things that can still be repaired:
- Glass Front
- Glass Back
- Screen
- Battery
- Enclosure/Casing
- Lightning Port
- 3.5MM port (where applicable)
If your processor in the phone goes bad, the cost to repair now and even in the past always exceeded purchasing a new phone. Additionally, the screen on the new iPhone is different sizes and tech than the old phone. My iPhone X has an OLED screen, my iPhone 6 (previous phone) had an LCD screen of a differing size. So you are stuck with either forcing a manufacturer to manufacture old tech, or you are forcing standardization both of which are for the sake of repairability which could compromise innovation. I am sure there is some happy medium but I think the way they do it now is more than sufficient. These types of reports are just more attacks on an extremely successful company.
Ultimately, I agree with your premise, but your examples are poor as-well.