IDK, I can’t remember the last time I actually used a warranty, and I know I have consciously decided not to on multiple occasions. It’s generally easier for me to repair something myself than to go through the warranty process, even if that process is smooth.
So I kind of get where the OP is coming from. At least in my perspective, the warranty needs to be just good enough that enough people exercise it so making good products is cheaper for the company than trying to scam people out of the warranty. Consumers pay for warranties through increased purchase prices, so the better and longer the warranty is, the more the product costs.
In general, I much prefer an easily repairable product to one with a comprehensive warranty, so I’d rather push for Right to Repair than better warranty coverage.
A warranty is merely insurance, so you pay extra to have some assurance of a refund or repair. It only needs to be good enough to keep the company honest. Defects are usually caught at the beginning of a product’s lifecycle, so a warranty past the first two-years (again, generally speaking) is generally a repair plan, which is probably more expensive on average than just repairing it yourself.
From my experience, warranties in the US are good enough for that first “product defect” period, we’re just missing the parts availability for repairs. The reason people seem to want longer warranties is because manufacturers charge a ridiculous amount for out of service repairs. For example, it’s usually cheaper to buy a new phone than get a battery replaced by the manufacturer, despite the battery itself probably costing <$50.
So the problem here is not that warranties suck, but that manufacturers have a monopoly on certain repairs and can therefore push people into buying new instead of getting the repair. That’s the problem we should be solving. Improving warranties doesn’t really protect consumers, it protects large companies because they can just increase the price of their products because it’s just an insurance product.
I’m not saying it’s the best, I’m saying it’s sufficient.
I’d rather have no warranty, bountiful parts availability, and lower prices instead of a great warranty, poor parts availability, and higher prices. I want to own things, not rent them, and an expensive warranty is closer to rental than ownership. However, I also think defects should be covered, so a short initial warranty is good (like 1-2 years for most things). I can get that with my credit card, so I don’t need manufacturers to provide it.
In short, I want manufacturers to make things, not service them. I don’t want Valve to fix my Steam Deck, I want it to be cheaper and for replacement parts to be cheaply available. Getting both means I’m paying more, since I’m subsidizing the warranty and support systems they need to provide.
Our consumer protections are fetid rotting meat, my guy, what the fuck are you smoking
IDK, I can’t remember the last time I actually used a warranty, and I know I have consciously decided not to on multiple occasions. It’s generally easier for me to repair something myself than to go through the warranty process, even if that process is smooth.
So I kind of get where the OP is coming from. At least in my perspective, the warranty needs to be just good enough that enough people exercise it so making good products is cheaper for the company than trying to scam people out of the warranty. Consumers pay for warranties through increased purchase prices, so the better and longer the warranty is, the more the product costs.
In general, I much prefer an easily repairable product to one with a comprehensive warranty, so I’d rather push for Right to Repair than better warranty coverage.
Wow, you mean you never used the infamously bad service because it wasnt a good service?
Wild, its almost like fetid rotting meat
Thats a fascinating dichotomy, but you do not need to pick between two common sense things.
A warranty is merely insurance, so you pay extra to have some assurance of a refund or repair. It only needs to be good enough to keep the company honest. Defects are usually caught at the beginning of a product’s lifecycle, so a warranty past the first two-years (again, generally speaking) is generally a repair plan, which is probably more expensive on average than just repairing it yourself.
From my experience, warranties in the US are good enough for that first “product defect” period, we’re just missing the parts availability for repairs. The reason people seem to want longer warranties is because manufacturers charge a ridiculous amount for out of service repairs. For example, it’s usually cheaper to buy a new phone than get a battery replaced by the manufacturer, despite the battery itself probably costing <$50.
So the problem here is not that warranties suck, but that manufacturers have a monopoly on certain repairs and can therefore push people into buying new instead of getting the repair. That’s the problem we should be solving. Improving warranties doesn’t really protect consumers, it protects large companies because they can just increase the price of their products because it’s just an insurance product.
You are stuck in the idea that the american warranty is the best version of warranties. It really isnt.
I’m not saying it’s the best, I’m saying it’s sufficient.
I’d rather have no warranty, bountiful parts availability, and lower prices instead of a great warranty, poor parts availability, and higher prices. I want to own things, not rent them, and an expensive warranty is closer to rental than ownership. However, I also think defects should be covered, so a short initial warranty is good (like 1-2 years for most things). I can get that with my credit card, so I don’t need manufacturers to provide it.
In short, I want manufacturers to make things, not service them. I don’t want Valve to fix my Steam Deck, I want it to be cheaper and for replacement parts to be cheaply available. Getting both means I’m paying more, since I’m subsidizing the warranty and support systems they need to provide.