In America at least I think the repair debates as a matter of law are off the mark overall. What I think is at the actual root of the problem for most people (and for the market), and what I'd really like to see legally, would be adaptive mandated warranty periods that better match the common sense expectation of how long a device should reasonably last. Say 1 year per $200 up to a max of 5 years for a napkin example, though it may be that a non-linear curve with monthly resolution would work better. But the core market issue really is the same old story about externalities and information asymmetry: manufacturers know failure rates far better then consumers, are in far more of a position to make money on the tradeoffs, and the total cost isn't reflected in the sticker price. While for something super bargain basement there is an understanding that durability may be less, I think most people feel like a premium, ~$1k+ computer should be expected to last a good 4-6 years, and if not then the manufacturer should repair or replace it at no additional charge, including a reasonable amount for shipping (COTUS at least). How exactly a manufacturer chooses to hit that should be up to them, but that's what the standard result should be.

So in the case of Apple, if they still wanted to make expensive to repair 1st/certified-3rd party only devices they could, but they'd have to eat all the expenses of that. No foisting it off onto an unlucky 0.1% or 1% or 2% or 7% or whatever of customers, it should be their job to get it right. If it makes the retail price too expensive, then they'll naturally have to figure out how to lower the failure rate or decrease the repair cost. Extended warranties should never be a thing except for special extra commercial services (onsite repairs, specific SLAs, advance replacement and so forth).