Sounds like the demographic of "tech person" changed. It used to be mostly hardliners back in the days of the thinkpad, but now it's filled with moderates who don't really feel too strongly about repairability and extendability.
I was around in the heyday of the ThinkPad, and this is (mostly) backward.
It was always the standard kit of the stereotypical scruffy Linux hacker, but it was mostly just a really good laptop. The connoisseur's choice, reliable, repairable, and IBM would come to you and fix it on the desk if you paid them.
A lot of that demographic have switched to MacBooks or one of the many ultrabook-type laptops of a similar design language, and what's left is the crew who valued the ability to hack on the machine.
They were always there, but they're most of what's left.
I'm not sure "repairability" was the real reason thinkpads were popular. They were clearly better on a lot of criteria, at the time. I think the competition simply caught up, and the Thinkpad line simply doesn't have as much to distinguish it from the pack now.
I consider the likelihood of needing to repair or extend it within a 6 year lifetime, and I believe the Macbook has by far the best reputation in that regard.
In reality, modern Macbooks have a horrible reputation for repairability and engage in dark patterns to stop you from getting your device repaired even when it is an option.
Counter-point. The company I work for has about 50/50 Macbooks vs Lenovo. We have about 1000 staff, and I've seen similar rates in a company with 5000 staff.
Macbooks
* 2% fail in first 12 months
* 20% need replacing in 3 years
Lenovo:
* 20% fail in first 12 months. (Surprisingly high number fail out of the box)
* 80% need replacing within 3 years
I don't want a laptop that's easy to repair as much as a laptop that doesn't need repairing.
Is that because MacBooks are more tolerant of damages, rather than being resistant? I've seen photos of MacBooks with deformed bodies still operating normally. Same don't happen often with other brands.
