Not necessarily. If a device were repairable, users would be more likely to repair it when it breaks instead of replacing it with a new one. This reduces demand for new devices and pushes the price downward.
On the other hand, a device that is repairable has a longer lifespan than the same device if it were not repairable. The longer lifespan adds utility and perceived value to the repairable device, which would increase demand and push the price upward.
It's hard to say whether the net result would be a higher or lower price. It would depend on the product and the market.
> This reduces demand for new devices and pushes the price downward.
That's not right.
In the common case of a multivendor industry where production is not limited by resource constraints, reduced demand raises prices due to economy of scale.
What sorts of repairable goods aren't limited by resource constraints in today's marketplace. The most common constrained resource being integrated circuits.
Moore's Law depends on continued demand growth for integrated circuits. So calling it a constrained resource is backwards, even if it can behave that way in the short term.
Moore's Law isn't a physical law of the universe, it's an observation of what is ultimately a short window of progress extrapolated into a guiding principle. More like an aspirational metronome than a "law" per se. And some observers have claimed that it's no longer bearing out
Right, it is a consequence of continued demand. As demand for ICs grew, increasing investments into fabrication technology allowed Moore’s Law to continue. As demand stops growing, Moore’s Law slows. It’s a socio/techno/economic phenomenon.
On the other hand, a device that is repairable has a longer lifespan than the same device if it were not repairable. The longer lifespan adds utility and perceived value to the repairable device, which would increase demand and push the price upward.
It's hard to say whether the net result would be a higher or lower price. It would depend on the product and the market.