Making maintenance easier requires a fair amount of industry-wide standardization and interoperability, and many corporations view this a threat to their market share and hence, profitability. This has been widely seen in the computer industry over the years, although the long-term conclusions might oppose the short-term view, i.e. while at first the closed-system strategy might succeed, in the long term having an open-system approach will bring in customers who've been burned in one way or another by the closed-system world.

A particular example I'm very familiar with is bicycles - they're fairly easy to maintain and work on relative to automobiles (no fluids, not much electronics until recently etc.). Ideally a bicycle can be maintained easily and replaced piecemeal from a wide variety of suppliers, i.e. everything is swappable and there are no non-standard parts, such as weirdly threaded bottom brackets or non-standard axle widths. Some companies have tried to do things like that - I think Shimano made an integrated brake lever/gear shifter for a while, whereas most bikes allow you to replace each item separately. For example, if your bicycle frame breaks, you should be able to remove all the parts and install them on a roughly similar frame, even from another manufacturer.

As far as deliberately making repair more difficult in the hopes that people would toss their old devices and buy new ones, there's good evidence for that with Apple, such as the introduction of pentalobe screws for no other plausible reason than making repair require specialized tools (IFixit's comprehensive screwdriver kit is nice in that regard).

The solution is once again, governmental regulation and agreement on certain standards, for example requiring a standard USB-C connection for all phones sold in a given market, etc.