3 ms·
> But the point about new tech being risky, is entirely fair. If something's still exciting, it's probably a good idea for the risk-averse to avoid it. Seems l
by civilized 5y ago
> But the point about new tech being risky, is entirely fair. If something's still exciting, it's probably a good idea for the risk-averse to avoid it.
Seems like you're saying a person who bought a thousand euro phone and couldn't get it repaired under warranty after a month of mild use is "risk-averse" if they dislike that experience.
Would a truly non-risk-averse person be overjoyed by this experience or see no problem with it? Would they accept it as the price they pay for being an early adopter and see no reason to complain? I'm confused.
- ByteJockey 5y ago> Seems like you're saying a person who bought a thousand euro phone and couldn't get it repaired under warranty after a month of mild use is "risk-averse" if they dislike that experience. I'm saying that a person who is risk-averse should probably avoid this. There aren't very many third party repair places yet, so you're completely at the mercy of a single company. There's also an increased risk if said company is based outside your country (or supra-national political union, should you live in one). It's harder for a country to force a company in another jurisdiction into compliance.