> I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.
It's not so easy.
You (or a generic user) would expect "5 years minimum", but at the same time would also expect no increase in price.
Using as reference insurances on home appliances, extension to 5 years is around the lines of 15%, which is a lot.
I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but I think it's a complex subject.
Right to repair is for example another take on the the problem (I'm not arguing it's better or worse), as the increase in price wouldn't trickle down to consumers who don't want it.
You don't have to give up on price: there are other areas in which sacrifices could be made.
You could give up some model churn, lowering actual costs by using the same parts in many model years. It's hard enough to maintain parts inventory in an automotive repair context, and there's just not enough money in the devices to sustain a similar level of complexity in appliance repair.
You could sacrifice some compactness, using interchangeable brackets and larger assemblies that connect together with fasteners instead of custom-molded brackets and glued-up assemblies that can only be assembled, never disassembled. These might be more expensive for a single model, but over several years economies of scale would catch up.
Finally, you could make these replacement parts available at home improvement stores and at the same retailers that sell the devices, instead of through distribution chains only usable by licensed professionals. I was able to repair my furnace this winter when the exhaust blower failed (and my AC when the capacitor failed) because I could buy the part I needed on Amazon with next-day shipping. I had the day off, and was willing to drive around, but on calling 12 different places within an hour I found none that would sell the parts to me. And just a visit for a quote would have cost more and taken more time than shipping the failed component from Amazon.
The manufacturers would prefer that you buy an entire new appliance from them, and have made decisions which harm the environment and harm consumers, but benefit them. Regulation is required.
I'm not sure your beef is really with the manufacturer in this case although, in general, the manufacturer would prefer to sell you something new.
As you note, you were able to order the part online and there are a fair number of online providers of appliance parts. (Including Sears, while they're still around, although they centrally stock rather than at individual stores.)
I suspect the local stores just don't want to deal with consumers, many of whom may need more handholding than the store provides.
if the price of the good includes the cost of proper disposal/recycling/environmental impact of the good, and this proper disposal/recycling actually happens (unlike e.g. many CRT monitors in the US), then I think that other regulation around product lifespans probably isn't needed and allowing consumers to decide based on price is fine.
but if those costs aren't correctly accounted for in the price then being able to choose a "low priced thing" is just pushing the clean up costs onto society.
that said, people who have historically gotten a benefit and pushed costs on to third parties will of course probably be unhappy about a change that forces them to pay for the costs. see also: capitalism generally, climate change.
It's not so easy.
You (or a generic user) would expect "5 years minimum", but at the same time would also expect no increase in price.
Using as reference insurances on home appliances, extension to 5 years is around the lines of 15%, which is a lot.
I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but I think it's a complex subject.
Right to repair is for example another take on the the problem (I'm not arguing it's better or worse), as the increase in price wouldn't trickle down to consumers who don't want it.