5 ms·

This is a big thing in Australia, new laws that came out in 2011 to emphasis the point. Especially that products should last "as long as you expect them to las

by lysp 9y ago

This is a big thing in Australia, new laws that came out in 2011 to emphasis the point. Especially that products should last "as long as you expect them to last". Take TVs for example - if you buy a 80" OLED for $500, it might be expected it'll only last 12-18 months. However if you purchased a 50" 4k TV for a few thousand dollars, the implied warranty might be 5+ years as it's a product of reasonable quality and cost. The best bit about it is that if there is a major fault with the product, the remedies are: 1) Refund, 2) Replacement, or 3) Repair. And it is the consumer/purchaser's choice. So if you purchased a TV for $5000 and then a fault causes it to blow up 5 years later, you can ask to get a full refund, even though the current street value might only be a few hundred dollars. The benefit of this is it forces manufacturers to actually build quality products, knowing they are liable for full refunds if they fail. It reduces the chance that they'll build "planned obsolescence" using cheap parts that might only last 12 months and 1 day (1 day past their "warranty"). A longer explanation is here: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/repair-replace-refund https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...

ams6110 9y ago
> So if you purchased a TV for $5000 and then a fault causes it to blow up 5 years later, you can ask to get a full refund, even though the current street value might only be a few hundred dollars. That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. You got 5 years use out of the TV, even if it didn't last as long as you expected you still got value out of it and shouldn't deserve a full refund at that point.
- lysp 9y ago
  > That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. That's exactly why the law was changed. The balance of power was initially on the manufacturer's side. All they had to do was say "1 year warranty" and everyone was out of luck if/when it failed. Consumers were required to upgrade and buy a replacement product. Now the balance of power is on the consumer's side. Most of the time TVs will last 5+ years, but in the case where it doesn't, and lots fail early due to a manufacturing issue - then the cost (is rightly) put back on to the manufacturer. It forces them to stand by their product, ensuring the quality is up to a good standard. They must use quality long lasting components and make sure their testing process is up to scratch. Otherwise they will be up for the cost to remedy that. If they make sure their product doesn't fail early, the cost is minimal to them. So this changes their mindset in terms of the manufacturing and design processes.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    The market already addresses that, and if the government intends to address those issues directly it will quickly become a game of whack-a-mole. You’re not “out of luck” when it fails, as it would be your fault for buying a shoddy (nonessential) product.
- Adverblessly 9y ago
  Seems very fair to me. I paid $5000 for a good TV for 5 years. If after 2.5 years it breaks and they refund me $2500, which I am then forced to use to buy a shitty $2500 TV that will only last me 2.5 years, then effectively I paid $5000 for 2.5 years of good TV followed by 2.5 years of shitty TV, which is unfair to me. If instead I take the $2500 and add my own $2500 to buy a new good TV for 5 years, then they instead switched the deal on me to 7.5K for 7.5 years, which is not what I originally signed up for, so it becomes an unfair bait and switch.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    So it becomes illegal to sell you a product as-is? Isn't that the point of a capitalist market? The best as-is product provider wins.
    - _Tev 9y ago
      Well "capitalist market" can still be "unfair", due to information assymetry. Or can you perfectly decide which product is best "as-is"? Not saying regulation is best answer here, just that the issue is more complex and "free market" likely isn't 100% solution.
sattoshi 9y ago
Why would I expect a 500$ TV to last less than 2 years? Why is it suppose to break? I have 2 TVs are the newer one is 4 years old. They're not modern by any means but why should I expect anything less?
- lysp 9y ago
  > Why would I expect a 500$ TV to last less than 2 years? My point was specifically a $500 TV that was 80" and OLED. If all the current models with that specification are up around $5,000 - $10,000 or higher, and there is a model that sells for 1/10th the average price. An argument could be made that you could expect that might not last as long as one ten times higher. The law is intentionally vague about time limits. "One could expect that a TV that costs ten times less than all the other competition, may not be built to the same quality as all the others which are much more expensive". There still isn't a specific time limit though. And if it did fail within 2 years then you could probably make the argument that you expect a TV to last longer than 2 years. To put the argument a different way - If you compare $5 kitchen knives at the local discount store vs $250 Japanese steel chef knives. You'd expect the $200 knives to last longer. As to how much longer, that's up to the person making the warranty complaint.
Nerevarine76 9y ago
Wow, that sounds like some serious liability for the manufacturer. Given these regulations I imagine these kinds of products in Australia are quite expensive relative to less restrictive countries. I also don't fully understand the need for laws to fix the "planned obsolescence" issue - if a manufacturer's products consistently broke shortly after the warranty expired (well before expected end of lifetime), why would anyone continue to purchase from that crap manufacturer...
- lysp 9y ago
  > Wow, that sounds like some serious liability for the manufacturer. Given these regulations I imagine these kinds of products in Australia are quite expensive relative to less restrictive countries. It's expensive(ish) here anyway, mostly due to lack of competition. A country of 25m people surrounded by water, we're stuck with local manufacturers or importing (without local warranty). > I also don't fully understand the need for laws to fix the "planned obsolescence" issue - if a manufacturer's products consistently broke shortly after the warranty expired (well before expected end of lifetime), why would anyone continue to purchase from that crap manufacturer... Because maybe that's all the person can afford.
- lmm 9y ago
  > I also don't fully understand the need for laws to fix the "planned obsolescence" issue - if a manufacturer's products consistently broke shortly after the warranty expired (well before expected end of lifetime), why would anyone continue to purchase from that crap manufacturer... There's an information asymmetry - if a previously-reputable manufacturer starts cheaping out on quality to save money, consumers have no way of knowing until a few years later. And unfortunately this seems to be a common pattern.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    What I intentionally design and market a TV that only lasts 2 years, in exchange for a lower price. This law would prevent that. What would hapoen to the disposible plates and utensils industries?
versteegen 9y ago
> The best bit about it is that if there is a major fault with the product, the remedies are: 1) Refund, 2) Replacement, or 3) Repair. And it is the consumer/purchaser's choice. I'm surprised; in NZ it is the seller's choice which of the three to provide.

by lysp 9y ago

ams6110 9y ago

> So if you purchased a TV for $5000 and then a fault causes it to blow up 5 years later, you can ask to get a full refund, even though the current street value might only be a few hundred dollars. That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. You got 5 years use out of the TV, even if it didn't last as long as you expected you still got value out of it and shouldn't deserve a full refund at that point.

lysp 9y ago
> That doesn't seem quite fair to the manufacturer to me. That's exactly why the law was changed. The balance of power was initially on the manufacturer's side. All they had to do was say "1 year warranty" and everyone was out of luck if/when it failed. Consumers were required to upgrade and buy a replacement product. Now the balance of power is on the consumer's side. Most of the time TVs will last 5+ years, but in the case where it doesn't, and lots fail early due to a manufacturing issue - then the cost (is rightly) put back on to the manufacturer. It forces them to stand by their product, ensuring the quality is up to a good standard. They must use quality long lasting components and make sure their testing process is up to scratch. Otherwise they will be up for the cost to remedy that. If they make sure their product doesn't fail early, the cost is minimal to them. So this changes their mindset in terms of the manufacturing and design processes.
- chrischen 9y ago
  The market already addresses that, and if the government intends to address those issues directly it will quickly become a game of whack-a-mole. You’re not “out of luck” when it fails, as it would be your fault for buying a shoddy (nonessential) product.
Adverblessly 9y ago
Seems very fair to me. I paid $5000 for a good TV for 5 years. If after 2.5 years it breaks and they refund me $2500, which I am then forced to use to buy a shitty $2500 TV that will only last me 2.5 years, then effectively I paid $5000 for 2.5 years of good TV followed by 2.5 years of shitty TV, which is unfair to me. If instead I take the $2500 and add my own $2500 to buy a new good TV for 5 years, then they instead switched the deal on me to 7.5K for 7.5 years, which is not what I originally signed up for, so it becomes an unfair bait and switch.
- chrischen 9y ago
  So it becomes illegal to sell you a product as-is? Isn't that the point of a capitalist market? The best as-is product provider wins.
  - _Tev 9y ago
    Well "capitalist market" can still be "unfair", due to information assymetry. Or can you perfectly decide which product is best "as-is"? Not saying regulation is best answer here, just that the issue is more complex and "free market" likely isn't 100% solution.

sattoshi 9y ago

Why would I expect a 500$ TV to last less than 2 years? Why is it suppose to break? I have 2 TVs are the newer one is 4 years old. They're not modern by any means but why should I expect anything less?

lysp 9y ago
> Why would I expect a 500$ TV to last less than 2 years? My point was specifically a $500 TV that was 80" and OLED. If all the current models with that specification are up around $5,000 - $10,000 or higher, and there is a model that sells for 1/10th the average price. An argument could be made that you could expect that might not last as long as one ten times higher. The law is intentionally vague about time limits. "One could expect that a TV that costs ten times less than all the other competition, may not be built to the same quality as all the others which are much more expensive". There still isn't a specific time limit though. And if it did fail within 2 years then you could probably make the argument that you expect a TV to last longer than 2 years. To put the argument a different way - If you compare $5 kitchen knives at the local discount store vs $250 Japanese steel chef knives. You'd expect the $200 knives to last longer. As to how much longer, that's up to the person making the warranty complaint.

Nerevarine76 9y ago

Wow, that sounds like some serious liability for the manufacturer. Given these regulations I imagine these kinds of products in Australia are quite expensive relative to less restrictive countries. I also don't fully understand the need for laws to fix the "planned obsolescence" issue - if a manufacturer's products consistently broke shortly after the warranty expired (well before expected end of lifetime), why would anyone continue to purchase from that crap manufacturer...

lysp 9y ago
> Wow, that sounds like some serious liability for the manufacturer. Given these regulations I imagine these kinds of products in Australia are quite expensive relative to less restrictive countries. It's expensive(ish) here anyway, mostly due to lack of competition. A country of 25m people surrounded by water, we're stuck with local manufacturers or importing (without local warranty). > I also don't fully understand the need for laws to fix the "planned obsolescence" issue - if a manufacturer's products consistently broke shortly after the warranty expired (well before expected end of lifetime), why would anyone continue to purchase from that crap manufacturer... Because maybe that's all the person can afford.
lmm 9y ago
> I also don't fully understand the need for laws to fix the "planned obsolescence" issue - if a manufacturer's products consistently broke shortly after the warranty expired (well before expected end of lifetime), why would anyone continue to purchase from that crap manufacturer... There's an information asymmetry - if a previously-reputable manufacturer starts cheaping out on quality to save money, consumers have no way of knowing until a few years later. And unfortunately this seems to be a common pattern.
- chrischen 9y ago
  What I intentionally design and market a TV that only lasts 2 years, in exchange for a lower price. This law would prevent that. What would hapoen to the disposible plates and utensils industries?

versteegen 9y ago

> The best bit about it is that if there is a major fault with the product, the remedies are: 1) Refund, 2) Replacement, or 3) Repair. And it is the consumer/purchaser's choice. I'm surprised; in NZ it is the seller's choice which of the three to provide.