3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.