The idea that buying a product obligates the company to service it until the end of time is deranged. The life span of any product is heavily dependent on how a user cares for it. Cars with a 5-10 year warranty will easily last 25 years if used reasonably, and easily die in less than their warranty length if you abuse them. If you required a 25 year warranty on cars because that’s how long they should last, the only outcome is that people who take care of their cars would have to pay more to subsidize idiots who break them.
Every other product is identical. It’s not a coincidence that consumer electronics cost more in every country with “better consumer protection laws”, even accounting for your ridiculous tax rates. It’s because everyone is forced to pay extra, up front, to offset the costs of the people who aren’t willing to take proper care of their devices. That’s not better or better “value” to anyone.
IDK, I can’t remember the last time I actually used a warranty, and I know I have consciously decided not to on multiple occasions. It’s generally easier for me to repair something myself than to go through the warranty process, even if that process is smooth.
So I kind of get where the OP is coming from. At least in my perspective, the warranty needs to be just good enough that enough people exercise it so making good products is cheaper for the company than trying to scam people out of the warranty. Consumers pay for warranties through increased purchase prices, so the better and longer the warranty is, the more the product costs.
In general, I much prefer an easily repairable product to one with a comprehensive warranty, so I’d rather push for Right to Repair than better warranty coverage.
Being stolen is a seperate beast.
You said “ But regardless, the product was beyond warranty” it wouldn’t be if you had proper consumer protections.
Our consumer protections are perfectly fine.
The idea that buying a product obligates the company to service it until the end of time is deranged. The life span of any product is heavily dependent on how a user cares for it. Cars with a 5-10 year warranty will easily last 25 years if used reasonably, and easily die in less than their warranty length if you abuse them. If you required a 25 year warranty on cars because that’s how long they should last, the only outcome is that people who take care of their cars would have to pay more to subsidize idiots who break them.
Every other product is identical. It’s not a coincidence that consumer electronics cost more in every country with “better consumer protection laws”, even accounting for your ridiculous tax rates. It’s because everyone is forced to pay extra, up front, to offset the costs of the people who aren’t willing to take proper care of their devices. That’s not better or better “value” to anyone.
Our consumer protections are fetid rotting meat, my guy, what the fuck are you smoking
IDK, I can’t remember the last time I actually used a warranty, and I know I have consciously decided not to on multiple occasions. It’s generally easier for me to repair something myself than to go through the warranty process, even if that process is smooth.
So I kind of get where the OP is coming from. At least in my perspective, the warranty needs to be just good enough that enough people exercise it so making good products is cheaper for the company than trying to scam people out of the warranty. Consumers pay for warranties through increased purchase prices, so the better and longer the warranty is, the more the product costs.
In general, I much prefer an easily repairable product to one with a comprehensive warranty, so I’d rather push for Right to Repair than better warranty coverage.