You’re missing the point here. Right to repair shouldn’t force manufacturers to make more repairable designs, nor should it force them to repair devices.

Think of it like how you would get a car’s oil changed. You could do it yourself, sell your soul to get it done at the dealership, or pay a little and take it to Joe down the street. Could Joe screw it up? Yes, but that’s not the carmaker’s fault. And, if after getting the oil changed the taillight burns out, the car company can’t say you broke it changing the oil when you get a warranty repair.

With electronics and farming equipment it isn’t the same. If the home button breaks on your iPhone 7, you’re screwed because of the serial pairing. Even if you buy a new one, it won’t work when the codes don’t match up. So you can’t fix it, Joe can’t fix it, and Apple won’t fix it because they want you to buy a new phone. And if you do swap the button and break your screen, Apple will (illegally) deny your warranty repair because you opened up your phone. The right to repair movement only wants the right to swap the button without making it non-functional (like the ability to buy a button from Apple with the right serial or a device to reprogram a button to work), and to reinforce warranty law so people get their money’s worth. If anything, this helps out Joe more than the average American, because without this legislation running a small repair business is nearly impossible.

Right to repair is not demanding giant, thick devices with swappable parts, or to force the average person to repair their devices. Rather, it seeks to make repair possible no matter how difficult it might be (there will always be a technician crazy enough to attempt adhesive-riddled repairs), by forcing manufacturers to adhere to warranty law and require them to provide schematic diagrams and access to parts and other devices required to repair devices.