Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] If Microsoft Believed in Windows, Why Would it Sell Security Products Separately?

begin  oe_protect.scr 
Sinister Midget <phydeaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On 2006-11-22, amicus_curious <ACDC@xxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
>> news:2045846.K4n5X8XBOL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> If Companies Believed In Their Products, Why Would They Need To Sell You 
>>> An
>>> Extended Warranty?
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | ...it's basically an admission that the products they sell aren't built
>>> | to last. If products had a specific reputation for quality then no one
>>> | would ever even think about buying an extended warranty -- cutting off
>>> | this profit stream. In other words, the incentives are to build a
>>> | product that's just good enough to last a little while, but not good
>>> | enough to be problem free. Some say that this decrease in quality
>>> | makes plenty of sense when there's constant innovation and prices
>>> | continue to drop, to the point that it's often cheaper and better
>>> | to buy the latest version every few years rather than making sure
>>> | you get a really solid product. However, it certainly creates a
>>> | fine line that often ends up with customers feeling ripped off --
>>> | which is rarely good for business.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061120/115301.shtml
>>
>> This looks like a very selective reporting of the cited article.  The sense 
>> of the article was that extended warranties are not worth purchasing since 
>> the products typically outlast even the extended terms by far.  There is 
>> nothing here about Microsoft at all and nothing about Linux either. 
> 
> Now *that* assessment I'll agree with.
> 
> I could see how somebody might make the connection. But the article
> doesn't And, as you say, it points out that much of the "protection" is
> pointless.
> 
> However, I bought a used car once and was talked into the extended
> warranty. I kicked myself for awhile, but I'm glad I took it. I was
> given a runaround on the air conditioner. They kept putting in dye and
> finding nothing (they claimed). I took it back just after the normal
> warranty was expired. They told me, golly gee, they found it had a bad
> compressor, one of the pulleys was wearing down and several other
> things. Just under $2000, they said. Good, I told them. Put it on my
> extended warranty.
> 

You're quite right - it's all about statistics & economics.  If the
supplier repairs whilst it's under original warranty, then they have to
pay for the repairs /from their own margin/.  If, however, they wait
until that warranty has expired, then you have to pay.  If you have an
extended warranty, the insurance company pays - either way, the supplier
doesn't pay!

Extended warranties for most consumer goods are not worth it, though,
particularly for inexpensive goods.


-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
What will you do if all your problems aren't solved by the time you die?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index