> You also can't simply assume that an existing solution on the market is not the best already.

What kind of rash response is that? No one here is making a blanket claim that the market solution is categorically suboptimal.

> I mean, who told us that smartphones with user-replaceable batteries are better...

Let me repeat: you have to FIRST define what you mean by “better” and then ask that question. I want a phone with a removable battery, and it’s immediately clear to me that making this a requirement is a measure that removes a lower limit on the devices’ lifespan.

> Regulatory processes are shaped by the same incentives as market ones.

That’s just another one of those market-driven circular arguments. There’s no alternative to market logic, because in the end, everything follows the same incentives. You should be able to see that this is nonsense just by driving down a public street or standing under a streetlight at night.

> opposite direction from "help the market"

I would rephrase that as: “help the market move in a desired direction for the benefit of people” and I do believe that regulation can achieve exactly that.

> It's simply better than when a regulatory body implements its "quirky, special requests" at the expense of everyone else.

At whose expense, then? People who are upset that batteries are replaceable again? People who now find their smartphones a few millimeters too thick or a few grams too heavy? Are these people also upset about safety and environmental standards for cars because they make cars a little heavier, more expensive, or more complex?

> I mean, who told us that smartphones with user-replaceable batteries are better than smartphones that are 0.5 mm thinner because their batteries are non-replaceable? The same people who want to ban encryption? Even apart from the ad-hominem FUD argumentation, currently, it's the people who refuse to ban encryption even after it was pushed to them multiple times.