Poor example then, but I have worked with aircraft where we've paid hundreds for a bolt, which is more than the price of the thing we're fixing, just so we don't have to go through the pain of replacing the whole unit - even though it would be cheaper. Again, I don't think when it comes to spares we should expect a company to continue to support a legacy product indefinitely. I don't expect Apple to continue producing parts for the Apple 2 just in case someone sends theirs back for repairs.
I'm not disagreeing with you as to your second comment, but that's not how I read your first comment at all. Something as sweeping "no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole" has so many issues with it that putting it into practice would be beyond detrimental for manufacturers.
I understand you, and when I wrote the first post I was thinking on regular things, things that are (more or less) used by everybody on a regular basis. I understand that many exceptions are possible, many niche markets, many specific situations.
I'm just complaining that while we have many discussion on where to dump electronic garbage, how to protect landfills from heavy metals, how to avoid so many mili- micro- nano- plastic fragments from being ingested with tap water... we also consider that programmed obsolescense is just business pratice. Not being able to repair something is ok to protect business, prevent terrorists and protect children. And in the end it's even consumer fault, because we could buy things that aren't disposable. And when we spend $300 on a printer, instead of $50, everybody assumption is that at first you bought the cheaper option. And that even $300 is the cheaper, you should have spent $500.
Then everybody complains that someone else should do something concious about environment, and everybody forgets that "everybody should do something" is exactly why governments exists, are elected and legislate. Because government shouldn't be more than "everybody".
I'm not disagreeing with you as to your second comment, but that's not how I read your first comment at all. Something as sweeping "no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole" has so many issues with it that putting it into practice would be beyond detrimental for manufacturers.