The inclusion of DeWalt got me thinking, because I own several DeWalt power tools. Arguably, these are contractor grade tools made to stand up to some abuse. I buy them because it's a well regarded brand name (for the reason above), but typically only after I've validated my need for a specific tool by breaking a cheap one from repeated use. Truth be told, I've never thought about having to repair it (which I could probably do, because I do know there are parts available for them) or sending it off for repair, because even after owning some of them for 10+ years and subjecting them to countless loanings and abuse, none of them have failed on me.

I agree that there is a trade off, but I think it is this: I bought from a respected brand, so that in the event of failure, I can bring it back to the manufacturer (who will probably still be in business), and they can/will fix it (often under an extended warranty, and it's also not unheard of to find tool manufacturers specifically that will repair or replace tools under a lifetime warranty) rather than say something to the effect of "well, we can't fix that, you'll need to buy a new one". If the cost to me as a consumer for this privelege is that they feel the need to take measures that might prevent someone without the right tools from taking it apart so that they can ensure some revenue to keep their parts/repair services running, than I'm okay with that (as long as they aren't trying to sue people for making repairs).

This whole thing conjures up the Apple mindset of providing a consistent user experience, and locking down a device to ensure that consistency. Unfortunately, a combination of factors (outdated legal frameworks, pricing models, etc.) seem to conspire against people who want both a quality product manufactured to a high standard and the ability to tinker and repair (ie. HN users).