"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.
|
|
