6 ms·

This shouldn't be allowed at all: if the product was bad all along, they should be required to fix it, and shouldn't be able to say "well, it's old, so you shou

This shouldn't be allowed at all: if the product was bad all along, they should be required to fix it, and shouldn't be able to say "well, it's old, so you should just trash it", which means they don't suffer any penalty whatsoever.

duskwuff 2y ago
I don't think that's a reasonable expectation in general, and certainly not in this case. The affected TVs were all at least 20 years old - that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV, let alone an older model like these. Nor is it clear what Sony could reasonably have done to repair them; even by 2010, a lot of the parts used in CRT TVs were out of production and unavailable.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Maybe you're too young to remember, but people used to keep TVs for much longer periods before HDTV and flat panels came out. Also, these TVs are apparently fire hazards. It doesn't matter that they're 20 years old (at the point of the "recall" in 2010). I doubt the parts necessary to fix them were out of production; you can get parts for truly ancient electronics still. Things like capacitors don't become obsolete. The recall doesn't specify exactly which component is problematic, but says it's age-related, which usually points to capacitors.
  - tobr 2y ago
    This. I’ve known a TV that was in more or less daily use for over 30 years. Not sure why we stopped expecting that from electronics.
    - eru 2y ago
      Because electronics got so much better so much faster, that the vast majority of customers did not want to use old hardware. Especially if customers allowing shorter lifetimes allowed companies to lower the prices.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        There are many use cases for which a decade-old computer is still perfectly serviceable and even where they aren't, those computers can be repurposed for the ones that are. Moreover, we're talking about televisions and old Macs. TVs with higher resolutions might come out, but lower resolution ones continue to be sold new (implying demand exists at some price), and then why should anybody want to replace a functioning old TV with a newer one of the same resolution? Much older computers continue to be used because they run software that newer computers can't without emulation (which often introduces bugs) or have older physical interfaces compatible with other and often extremely expensive older hardware. If people actually wanted to replace their hardware instead of fixing it then they'd not be complaining about the inability to fix it.
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        >There are many use cases for which a decade-old computer is still perfectly serviceable and even where they aren't, those computers can be repurposed for the ones that are. It depends. Older computers usually guzzle power, especially if you look at the absolutely awful Pentium4 systems. You're probably better off getting a RasPi or something, depending on what exactly you're trying to do. Newer systems have gotten much better with energy efficiency, so they'll pay for themselves quickly through lower electricity bills. >TVs with higher resolutions might come out, but lower resolution ones continue to be sold new (implying demand exists at some price) We're already seeing a limit here. 8k TVs are here now, but not very popular. There's almost no media in that resolution, and people can't tell the difference from 4k. For a while, this wasn't the case: people were upgrading from 480 to 720 to 1080 and now to 4k. >and then why should anybody want to replace a functioning old TV with a newer one of the same resolution? They probably don't; if they're upgrading, they're getting a higher resolution (lots of 1080 screens still out there), or they're getting a bigger screen. It's possible they might want newer smart TV features too: older sets probably have support dropped and don't support the latest streaming services, though usually you can just get an add-on device that plugs into the HDMI port so this is probably less of a factor.
        2y ago
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >Not sure why we stopped expecting that from electronics. For TVs specifically, the technology changed a lot. For a long time, everyone was stuck on the NTSC standard, which didn't change much. At first, everyone had B&W TVs, so once you had one, there was no reason to change. Then color TV came out, so suddenly people wanted those. After that, again no reason to change for a long time. Later, they got remote controls, so sometimes people would want one of those, or maybe a bigger screen, but generally a working color TV was good enough. Because TVs were glass CRTs, bigger screens cost a lot more than smaller ones, and there wasn't much change in cost here for a long time. Then HDTV came out and now people wanted those, first in 720p, and later in 1080i/p. And flat screens came too, so people wanted those too. So in a relatively short amount of time, people went from old-style NTSC CRTs to seeing rapid improvements in resolution (480p->720p->1080->4k), screen size (going from ~20" to 3x", 4x", 5x", 6x", now up to 85"), and also display/color quality (LCD, plasma, QLED, OLED), so there were valid reasons to upgrade. The media quality (I hate the word "content") changed too, with programs being shot in HD, and lately 4k/HDR, so the difference was quite noticeable to viewers. Before long, the improvements are going to slow or stop. They already have 8k screens, but no one buys them because there's no media for them and they can't really see the difference from 4k. Even 1080p media looks great on a 4k screen with upscaling, and not that much different from 4k. The human eye is only capable of so much, so we're seeing diminishing returns. So I predict that this rapid upgrade cycle might be slowing, and probably stopping before long with the coming economic crash and Great Depression of 2025. The main driver of new TV sales will be people's old TVs dying from component failure.
      - bregma 2y ago
        > The human eye is only capable of so much, so we're seeing diminishing returns. Or not seeing diminishing returns. Which is the point.
      - Someone 2y ago
        > At first, everyone had B&W TVs, so once you had one, there was no reason to change Televisions improved over time: - screens got flatter - screens got larger - image quality improved - image contrast increased (people used to close their curtains to watch tv) - televisions got preset channels
    - blitzar 2y ago
      > Not sure why we stopped expecting that from electronics. Last years model only does 4k, my eyes need 8k
      - xattt 2y ago
        32K ought to be enough for anybody.
        blitzar 2y ago
        32K is going to look so lifeless and dull after you try 64k.
        xattt 2y ago
        When will the pixels start to approach erythrocyte-level density like on the Vision Pro? edit: Anywhere between 208K to 277K.
    - bloak 2y ago
      My experience of ancient CRT devices is that the display gets gradually dimmer. I once had a TV that was only really usable after dark -- but that's the only time I wanted to use it anyway -- and a huge Sun monitor that was only just about readable in total darkness, but we kept it because we also had a Sun server that we didn't know how to connect to any other monitor and we were worried that one day we wouldn't be able to SSH to it, but in fact the server never once failed.
    - robocat 2y ago
      > daily use for over 30 years However that doesn't imply TVs were that reliable. Before the 90s TV repairman was a regular job, and TVs often needed occasional expensive servicing. I remember a local TV repair place in the 90s which serviced "old" TVs.
  - nuancebydefault 2y ago
    Suppose they would recall all the old tv's with known faults, can those be fixed to become conform to (today's) quality and safety standards, while being full of old components with characteristics beyond original tolerances?
- kbelder 2y ago
  > that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV, let alone an older model like these A modern TV may have an expected lifespan of five years. TVs from several decades ago had lifespans of... several decades. Quality has plummeted in that market.
  - eru 2y ago
    Only one metric of 'quality' has plummeted. A rock lasts billions of years, but its quality as a TV is rather questionable.
  - azinman2 2y ago
    5 years? Is that really true? I’m currently using an LG from 2017 and cannot imagine needing to change it. I would be shocked if it stopped working.
    - tverbeure 2y ago
      I don't think it is true at all. There's nothing inside today's monitors or TVs that can't run for at least 10 years. Our main TV, 42" 720p LCD, is from 2008, and I have monitors that are just as old.
      - Supernaut 2y ago
        Yep. My TV, a 42" Panasonic plasma, dates from 2009 and is still working perfectly. I haven't replaced it, because why would I?
    - rvense 2y ago
      But when it does, it will probably be the capacitors in the power supply that have dried out.
      - verzali 2y ago
        Is that really the case? Because if so, it seems like simply replacing the capacitors would save a lot of waste and unnecessary purchases of new TVs...
- bee_rider 2y ago
  It is a legitimate business decision, to sell things that last less than 20 years. Fine, I think it is lame, but it is their choice. But, we shouldn’t let companies get away with selling products that catch fire after working fine for 20 years.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  "that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV, let alone an older model like these" People still run these Trinitron TVs to this day.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV What? That's nuts. Why bother buying a tv if you're immediately going to throw it in the trash
tengbretson 2y ago
My radial arm saw ended up getting a product recall for simply being too difficult for the average consumer to use safely. The "recall" amounted to them sending you instructions to cut off a critical power cord and mail it in to them, and they send you a $50 check.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
That is completely unreasonable. Companies can't be expected to take in and repair devices that old.

duskwuff 2y ago

I don't think that's a reasonable expectation in general, and certainly not in this case. The affected TVs were all at least 20 years old - that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV, let alone an older model like these. Nor is it clear what Sony could reasonably have done to repair them; even by 2010, a lot of the parts used in CRT TVs were out of production and unavailable.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Maybe you're too young to remember, but people used to keep TVs for much longer periods before HDTV and flat panels came out. Also, these TVs are apparently fire hazards. It doesn't matter that they're 20 years old (at the point of the "recall" in 2010). I doubt the parts necessary to fix them were out of production; you can get parts for truly ancient electronics still. Things like capacitors don't become obsolete. The recall doesn't specify exactly which component is problematic, but says it's age-related, which usually points to capacitors.
- tobr 2y ago
  This. I’ve known a TV that was in more or less daily use for over 30 years. Not sure why we stopped expecting that from electronics.
  - eru 2y ago
    Because electronics got so much better so much faster, that the vast majority of customers did not want to use old hardware. Especially if customers allowing shorter lifetimes allowed companies to lower the prices.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      There are many use cases for which a decade-old computer is still perfectly serviceable and even where they aren't, those computers can be repurposed for the ones that are. Moreover, we're talking about televisions and old Macs. TVs with higher resolutions might come out, but lower resolution ones continue to be sold new (implying demand exists at some price), and then why should anybody want to replace a functioning old TV with a newer one of the same resolution? Much older computers continue to be used because they run software that newer computers can't without emulation (which often introduces bugs) or have older physical interfaces compatible with other and often extremely expensive older hardware. If people actually wanted to replace their hardware instead of fixing it then they'd not be complaining about the inability to fix it.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        >There are many use cases for which a decade-old computer is still perfectly serviceable and even where they aren't, those computers can be repurposed for the ones that are. It depends. Older computers usually guzzle power, especially if you look at the absolutely awful Pentium4 systems. You're probably better off getting a RasPi or something, depending on what exactly you're trying to do. Newer systems have gotten much better with energy efficiency, so they'll pay for themselves quickly through lower electricity bills. >TVs with higher resolutions might come out, but lower resolution ones continue to be sold new (implying demand exists at some price) We're already seeing a limit here. 8k TVs are here now, but not very popular. There's almost no media in that resolution, and people can't tell the difference from 4k. For a while, this wasn't the case: people were upgrading from 480 to 720 to 1080 and now to 4k. >and then why should anybody want to replace a functioning old TV with a newer one of the same resolution? They probably don't; if they're upgrading, they're getting a higher resolution (lots of 1080 screens still out there), or they're getting a bigger screen. It's possible they might want newer smart TV features too: older sets probably have support dropped and don't support the latest streaming services, though usually you can just get an add-on device that plugs into the HDMI port so this is probably less of a factor.
        2y ago
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Not sure why we stopped expecting that from electronics. For TVs specifically, the technology changed a lot. For a long time, everyone was stuck on the NTSC standard, which didn't change much. At first, everyone had B&W TVs, so once you had one, there was no reason to change. Then color TV came out, so suddenly people wanted those. After that, again no reason to change for a long time. Later, they got remote controls, so sometimes people would want one of those, or maybe a bigger screen, but generally a working color TV was good enough. Because TVs were glass CRTs, bigger screens cost a lot more than smaller ones, and there wasn't much change in cost here for a long time. Then HDTV came out and now people wanted those, first in 720p, and later in 1080i/p. And flat screens came too, so people wanted those too. So in a relatively short amount of time, people went from old-style NTSC CRTs to seeing rapid improvements in resolution (480p->720p->1080->4k), screen size (going from ~20" to 3x", 4x", 5x", 6x", now up to 85"), and also display/color quality (LCD, plasma, QLED, OLED), so there were valid reasons to upgrade. The media quality (I hate the word "content") changed too, with programs being shot in HD, and lately 4k/HDR, so the difference was quite noticeable to viewers. Before long, the improvements are going to slow or stop. They already have 8k screens, but no one buys them because there's no media for them and they can't really see the difference from 4k. Even 1080p media looks great on a 4k screen with upscaling, and not that much different from 4k. The human eye is only capable of so much, so we're seeing diminishing returns. So I predict that this rapid upgrade cycle might be slowing, and probably stopping before long with the coming economic crash and Great Depression of 2025. The main driver of new TV sales will be people's old TVs dying from component failure.
    - bregma 2y ago
      > The human eye is only capable of so much, so we're seeing diminishing returns. Or not seeing diminishing returns. Which is the point.
    - Someone 2y ago
      > At first, everyone had B&W TVs, so once you had one, there was no reason to change Televisions improved over time: - screens got flatter - screens got larger - image quality improved - image contrast increased (people used to close their curtains to watch tv) - televisions got preset channels
  - blitzar 2y ago
    > Not sure why we stopped expecting that from electronics. Last years model only does 4k, my eyes need 8k
    - xattt 2y ago
      32K ought to be enough for anybody.
      - blitzar 2y ago
        32K is going to look so lifeless and dull after you try 64k.
        xattt 2y ago
        When will the pixels start to approach erythrocyte-level density like on the Vision Pro? edit: Anywhere between 208K to 277K.
  - bloak 2y ago
    My experience of ancient CRT devices is that the display gets gradually dimmer. I once had a TV that was only really usable after dark -- but that's the only time I wanted to use it anyway -- and a huge Sun monitor that was only just about readable in total darkness, but we kept it because we also had a Sun server that we didn't know how to connect to any other monitor and we were worried that one day we wouldn't be able to SSH to it, but in fact the server never once failed.
  - robocat 2y ago
    > daily use for over 30 years However that doesn't imply TVs were that reliable. Before the 90s TV repairman was a regular job, and TVs often needed occasional expensive servicing. I remember a local TV repair place in the 90s which serviced "old" TVs.
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  Suppose they would recall all the old tv's with known faults, can those be fixed to become conform to (today's) quality and safety standards, while being full of old components with characteristics beyond original tolerances?
kbelder 2y ago
> that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV, let alone an older model like these A modern TV may have an expected lifespan of five years. TVs from several decades ago had lifespans of... several decades. Quality has plummeted in that market.
- eru 2y ago
  Only one metric of 'quality' has plummeted. A rock lasts billions of years, but its quality as a TV is rather questionable.
- azinman2 2y ago
  5 years? Is that really true? I’m currently using an LG from 2017 and cannot imagine needing to change it. I would be shocked if it stopped working.
  - tverbeure 2y ago
    I don't think it is true at all. There's nothing inside today's monitors or TVs that can't run for at least 10 years. Our main TV, 42" 720p LCD, is from 2008, and I have monitors that are just as old.
    - Supernaut 2y ago
      Yep. My TV, a 42" Panasonic plasma, dates from 2009 and is still working perfectly. I haven't replaced it, because why would I?
  - rvense 2y ago
    But when it does, it will probably be the capacitors in the power supply that have dried out.
    - verzali 2y ago
      Is that really the case? Because if so, it seems like simply replacing the capacitors would save a lot of waste and unnecessary purchases of new TVs...
bee_rider 2y ago
It is a legitimate business decision, to sell things that last less than 20 years. Fine, I think it is lame, but it is their choice. But, we shouldn’t let companies get away with selling products that catch fire after working fine for 20 years.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
"that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV, let alone an older model like these" People still run these Trinitron TVs to this day.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> that's well beyond the expected useful lifespan of even a modern TV What? That's nuts. Why bother buying a tv if you're immediately going to throw it in the trash

tengbretson 2y ago

My radial arm saw ended up getting a product recall for simply being too difficult for the average consumer to use safely. The "recall" amounted to them sending you instructions to cut off a critical power cord and mail it in to them, and they send you a $50 check.

bigstrat2003 2y ago

That is completely unreasonable. Companies can't be expected to take in and repair devices that old.