That's an insane way of looking at it. One of the reasons I'll never be a CEO, I guess. "Why are they making money off of our broken shit, we should be making that money fixing our broken shit instead". Like, talk about perverse incentives. Seems like the kind of thing that should be regulated.
Yep, I'm sure that part of the reason luxury vehicles break so easily (considering their cost) and are so expensive to fix is that HQ is handing out revenue to dealerships in the form of repairs. I've had simple stuff break on a BMW that never failed on any of the cheaper cars I've owned. And it was hundreds or thousands of dollars to fix.
Windshield and brakes are normal service items though.
They're not talking about making money selling broken shit. They're talking about forcing you to give them a cut every time you do normal service things with the product (something they have much more fine grained control over).
They're angry that Jiffy Lube exists, not that autobody shops exist.
IDK about the European market but US OEMs don't really want to be in the business of fixing things. GM for example DGAF about dealer service departments. They're happy to sell replacement parts and make pennies doing it but they see themselves as being in the new cars and car financing business. When they sell shit that breaks they don't do it so you can pay to fix it. They'd much rather the dealer try to sell you a new car.
It's the mindset of being as lazy as possible to achieve the most reward. That is a useful mindset to have to some extent, but excessive laziness can be detrimental, even harmful to other people especially when companies are seeking to manipulate the economic and regulatory conditions without producing new wealth.
Economists have a term for this called "rent-seeking", and even endorsed by society at large at time, such as land speculation and NIMBYism.
