4 ms·
I don't think you're giving the argument enough credit. Nobody says "I got my iPhone repaired cheaply and now the touch isn't responsive"; they tell their frien
by gkoberger 8y ago
I don't think you're giving the argument enough credit. Nobody says "I got my iPhone repaired cheaply and now the touch isn't responsive"; they tell their friends "God my iPhone sucks these days".
It's the same reason Kleenex sues when people use their brand for generic products, or Disney forces daycares to take down murals of Mickey, or Burberry burns unsold products. It's a slipper slope away from quality, and while no one thing is a huge deal, the culmination is.
I agree at the end of the day it's about making money, but that's just what being a business is. For certain brands, they want their products to be meticulous. It's not the only way to build a product (see Android), however it is the reason Apple products are so beloved by the people who buy them.
- gervase 8y agoThe first two examples you provided (Kleenex and Disney) have nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with trademarks. If they do not aggressively defend their trademark, even from tiny, rural daycares with 10 kids, then there is a chance they can lose their trademark and it can become generic (see aspirin, cellophane, escalator, etc).
- gkoberger 8y agoSure, I agree, but the larger point is the same: some companies choose to go overboard to protect their brand. The ways they do it is different, but the reason is the same.
- michaelmrose 8y agoA point where all the constituent examples are false is probably wrong. The only example thus far is one iPhone that caught fire. We have more than one car that caught fire and no ban on third party repairs for cars.
- Dylan16807 8y ago> Nobody says "I got my iPhone repaired cheaply and now the touch isn't responsive"; they tell their friends "God my iPhone sucks these days". Are you sure? People love to blame problems on the last person that touched a thing, even when they are unrelated.