On 2006-11-22, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> 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
I don't agree with this. Extended warranties make money. If they didn't
the companies wouldn't sell them.
Insurance is similar. Insurance companies bet you won't have to put in
a claim. You bet you will. If they're right, they make money. If they
aren't, they raise your rates after your claim, trying to get to a
level where you pay them more than they pay you. If they think that
won't work, they cancel you outright.
MS made security a problem. MS fostered poor security, creating the
need for a market to cover for their poor products, first through
neglect, but it's hard to imagine they let it get as bad as it has
without doing so deliberately.. MS let others support them through the
making of products that feigned security on a still-insecure platform.
Now the monoply is moving in to corner the market others have built.
MS miscalculated, though. The security market is fighting back. Their
own security products aren't up to the task. The platform all of this
is supposed to protect is as, or more, insecure, and such information
comes to light constantly. Many reports put Vista at a level where
calling it "ready" is a joke. IE7, the most secure browser ever
conceived, is showing itself to be as much a seive as that which it
replaces.
Now MS are figuring out that they screwed up and are looking for other
directions to make up for the errors: tightening up on licensing,
tightening up on how many times versions can be installed before a new
purchase is needed, expiring valid licenses (hassling customers and
confusing some into buying replacements), making patent threats to
attempt intimidation, etc..
Unfortunately for them, they have no secure fallback position whenever
the scheme fails. All they have is a big wad of cash that's going to
look pitifully small when it starts getting drained fast.
Too bad they left "Hasta la" off of the name. It's so appropriate.
--
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the
Windows people."
|
|
