4 ms·

I can also pay more to get that protection if I want to. It's called insurance and you can buy it for just about anything. Indeed, for all of the devices you li

I can also pay more to get that protection if I want to. It's called insurance and you can buy it for just about anything. Indeed, for all of the devices you listed, the manufacturer either sells an extended warranty, or aftermarket (e.g. SquareTrade) insurance is available in the US. I'm not sure why the government should effectively mandate that one buy it, though. Particularly to the lengths that Australia does. But anyhow, my original point wasn't about whether this is a good policy or not, just that it's annoying to hear the same people who cherish these "protections" then complain about being "ripped-off" when they have to pay for them. It's especially annoying when Australian politicians play dumb and try to paint the American companies as the bad guys.

shakna 10y ago
Manufacturers here also push the extended warranties and insurance, even if Consumer Law is more comprehensive. I don't think the extra costs have a 1:1 relationship. Shipping and customs here can be tougher. I haven't heard people who know the protections complain about costs. Surprisingly few people know their rights as a consumer. My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place. If I'm willing to pay $200 less for a TV and take a gamble on it not working after two months, why shouldn't I be allowed to?
  - shakna 10y ago
    A manufacturer should never build such a thing in the first place. We don't let restaurants gamble with food that might be off. We don't let hospitals gamble with medecine that might work. There has to be trials. We don't let cars that might be roadworthy drive around day to day. What makes electrical devices, that might rip you off special? Quality Control is mandated, because my day should never be ruined by a device that should make my day easier or more enjoyable.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      All of your other examples concern damage that extends beyond loss of the product, like death, injury, and illness. Those are covered by public health/safety laws and civil liability. My TV not working does not have any of those effects. There is a clear difference between a TV electrocuting and killing me (damages well beyond my initial investment) and it simply ceasing to function (maximum loss = initial investment). More analogous examples would be: a restaurant serves me an overcooked steak that tastes like a shoe, my car's entertainment system stops working.
      - shakna 10y ago
        A shitty TV can short. It can fail catastrophically. A TV of less quality can skip on standards, and that can mean safety. A phone can be a firebomb. So can a washing machine. Electronics should be held to a standard because they can fail dangerously. Now, all that being said: My phone cost $80. My TV cost $100. My washing machine cost $80. My car cost $30,000. I make around $45,000 a year. Its been 5 years, and all of these products were covered by Consumer Law, and every company obeyed the rules if faults appeared. Electronics don't have to be crap.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        We are in agreement that your phone should not blow up, and that you should have legal recourse in such an event. But that's totally irrelevant. We're talking about mandatory warranties for products, not civil liability for damages caused by them. You're drawing a false equivalence between the two. My phone no longer working is a totally different situation, covered by different laws, than my phone blowing up and hurting someone or burning down my house.
        shakna 10y ago
        I think you've missed the point. One is less likely because of the other. Higher base standards protect against products that are less likely to fail safe. The insurance firm I worked with would lower premiums for products from companies that acknowledged Consumer Law, as they were both less likely to fail, and fail catastrophically.
  - ageofwant 10y ago
    Why should a manufacturer be allowed to sell a TV that breaks after 2 months ? And get away with it ?
  - michaelt 10y ago
    It might not seem like it, but regulations like these are good for retailers and manufacturers as well as consumers. That's because they let the consumer buy with confidence, without retailers and manufacturers needing to waste a stack of money on advertising to turn themselves into a 'well known name'.

shakna 10y ago

Manufacturers here also push the extended warranties and insurance, even if Consumer Law is more comprehensive. I don't think the extra costs have a 1:1 relationship. Shipping and customs here can be tougher. I haven't heard people who know the protections complain about costs. Surprisingly few people know their rights as a consumer. My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place.

marcoperaza 10y ago
>My main point, which might be orthogonal to yours is: I shouldn't have to buy extra protection in the first place. If I'm willing to pay $200 less for a TV and take a gamble on it not working after two months, why shouldn't I be allowed to?
- shakna 10y ago
  A manufacturer should never build such a thing in the first place. We don't let restaurants gamble with food that might be off. We don't let hospitals gamble with medecine that might work. There has to be trials. We don't let cars that might be roadworthy drive around day to day. What makes electrical devices, that might rip you off special? Quality Control is mandated, because my day should never be ruined by a device that should make my day easier or more enjoyable.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    All of your other examples concern damage that extends beyond loss of the product, like death, injury, and illness. Those are covered by public health/safety laws and civil liability. My TV not working does not have any of those effects. There is a clear difference between a TV electrocuting and killing me (damages well beyond my initial investment) and it simply ceasing to function (maximum loss = initial investment). More analogous examples would be: a restaurant serves me an overcooked steak that tastes like a shoe, my car's entertainment system stops working.
    - shakna 10y ago
      A shitty TV can short. It can fail catastrophically. A TV of less quality can skip on standards, and that can mean safety. A phone can be a firebomb. So can a washing machine. Electronics should be held to a standard because they can fail dangerously. Now, all that being said: My phone cost $80. My TV cost $100. My washing machine cost $80. My car cost $30,000. I make around $45,000 a year. Its been 5 years, and all of these products were covered by Consumer Law, and every company obeyed the rules if faults appeared. Electronics don't have to be crap.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        We are in agreement that your phone should not blow up, and that you should have legal recourse in such an event. But that's totally irrelevant. We're talking about mandatory warranties for products, not civil liability for damages caused by them. You're drawing a false equivalence between the two. My phone no longer working is a totally different situation, covered by different laws, than my phone blowing up and hurting someone or burning down my house.
        shakna 10y ago
        I think you've missed the point. One is less likely because of the other. Higher base standards protect against products that are less likely to fail safe. The insurance firm I worked with would lower premiums for products from companies that acknowledged Consumer Law, as they were both less likely to fail, and fail catastrophically.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  Why should a manufacturer be allowed to sell a TV that breaks after 2 months ? And get away with it ?
- michaelt 10y ago
  It might not seem like it, but regulations like these are good for retailers and manufacturers as well as consumers. That's because they let the consumer buy with confidence, without retailers and manufacturers needing to waste a stack of money on advertising to turn themselves into a 'well known name'.