Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
^^ That is not my point. Those who wish to upgrade can.
Manufacturers should not be able design failure into a product, to do so is getting into really shaky ground with regards to consumer law.
Many people are campaigning for lemon laws - where if lots and lots or a particular product fail, they have to refund - even out of warranty. Other countries have such laws.
Then why ask the question? :D
You have proof they do that?
Good topic but some of these replies are a load if w*nk re expectations on warranty. Next time your gear fails, try asking for a solution with a smile for a change. You might be amazed.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mark _australia said..
^^ That is not my point. Those who wish to upgrade can.
Manufacturers should not be able design failure into a product, to do so is getting into really shaky ground with regards to consumer law.
Many people are campaigning for lemon laws - where if lots and lots or a particular product fail, they have to refund - even out of warranty. Other countries have such laws.
Then why ask the question? :D
You have proof they do that?
Yes it is included in university design and or engineering courses.
Fairly recently, that is.....
But even if one chooses to disregard that, the continued reduction in lifespan for most consumer products is quite obvious I'd have thought. Anecdotally, we have the best tech ever, but most things don't last as long as before (ignoring phones . computers etc which are obsolete soon enough anyway. I mean whitegoods, tools etc)
I have just asked nicely with a smile and was told that my product was out of warranty.
So tomorrow is a call to the australian importer and if that proves a waste of time my next move is be nasty and file with the appropriate department, followed by a visit to the aussie recall site to lodge my failure which is potentially very dangerous and a quick search of the net shows many similar failures.
So somebody is going to be reasonable to me or waste their time with a bunch of paperwork and the possibility of a recall.
Sometimes smiles just don't work and ****loads of Australians in retail/distribution have zero knowledge of Aussie consumer laws.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Kamikuza said..Mark _australia said..
^^ That is not my point. Those who wish to upgrade can.
Manufacturers should not be able design failure into a product, to do so is getting into really shaky ground with regards to consumer law.
Many people are campaigning for lemon laws - where if lots and lots or a particular product fail, they have to refund - even out of warranty. Other countries have such laws.
Then why ask the question? :D
You have proof they do that?
Yes it is included in university design and or engineering courses.
Fairly recently, that is.....
But even if one chooses to disregard that, the continued reduction in lifespan for most consumer products is quite obvious I'd have thought. Anecdotally, we have the best tech ever, but most things don't last as long as before (ignoring phones . computers etc which are obsolete soon enough anyway. I mean whitegoods, tools etc)
Recently? So anything 20 years shouldn't be failing due to designed in weakness, will it? 
It's pretty simple: your TV could last 100 years but a. it'd be obsolete long before then, making it worthless and b. the cost of making components that'd last so long would drive up the original purchase price...
It's obvious that people are happy to pay much less for stuff that doesn't last as long. Correction, that lasts long enough.
Your one year warranty on tv and washing machines is "designed" to weed out manufacturing etc defects. If you get through that first year, you're good to go. Stop whining.
Select to expand quoteWoott said..
Good topic but some of these replies are a load if w*nk re expectations on warranty. Next time your gear fails, try asking for a solution with a smile for a change. You might be amazed.
Here we go again LOL
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mark _australia said..Kamikuza said..Mark _australia said..
^^ That is not my point. Those who wish to upgrade can.
Manufacturers should not be able design failure into a product, to do so is getting into really shaky ground with regards to consumer law.
Many people are campaigning for lemon laws - where if lots and lots or a particular product fail, they have to refund - even out of warranty. Other countries have such laws.
Then why ask the question? :D
You have proof they do that?
Yes it is included in university design and or engineering courses.
Fairly recently, that is.....
But even if one chooses to disregard that, the continued reduction in lifespan for most consumer products is quite obvious I'd have thought. Anecdotally, we have the best tech ever, but most things don't last as long as before (ignoring phones . computers etc which are obsolete soon enough anyway. I mean whitegoods, tools etc)
Recently? So anything 20 years shouldn't be failing due to designed in weakness, will it?
It's pretty simple: your TV could last 100 years but a. it'd be obsolete long before then, making it worthless and b. the cost of making components that'd last so long would drive up the original purchase price...
It's obvious that people are happy to pay much less for stuff that doesn't last as long. Correction, that lasts long enough.
Your one year warranty on tv and washing machines is "designed" to weed out manufacturing etc defects. If you get through that first year, you're good to go. Stop whining.
Yeah so our consumer law is all dumb and it should not eb what the "reasonable consumer expects"
It should be what Mr Kamizuka expects.
No probs.
Do some reading up on planned obsolesence and built in faults / contrived durability.
Let me show u cos if you are closed minded already i know you won't Goolge it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
Even better Mr 'kuza here is a great conclusion for you from the above article (cos this stuff does not really exists huh)
"Planned obsolescence has been assumed a necessity when it comes to stimulating consumption, however, this practice has come into question. In the 21st century, the arrival of economic and environmental crisis has made a change in people's consciousness. The need to maintain a minimum product renewal date does not mean that abuses have to be accepted such as the tons of waste that could be avoided.After years of not taking this issue seriously, the French Assembly has taken a step forward. It has established a fine of up to 300,000 euros and jail terms of up to two years for those manufacturers planning the death of their products in advance. The rule is not only relevant because of the sanctions that it establishes but also because it is the first time that a legislation recognizes openly the existence of planned obsolescence. These techniques may include "a deliberate introduction of a flaw, a weakness, a scheduled stop, a technical limitation, incompatibility or other obstacles for repair", reads the text regarding what may be considered as planned obsolescence. "
Did you get past the first paragraph? Drop down to the types section.
Ignore the two "fashion" obsolescences, the tin-foil-hat programmed obsolescence, and look at what I assume you're moaning about--contrived obsolescence.
Entropy, bitches!
The better you manage that, the more you pay for the product...surprise! Because good design, use of quality components, manufacturing standards etc is going to increase the longevity AND the price--so you get what you pay for.
Insofar as that is your "designed obsolescence" then I've never disagreed with you. . . .
So what does it mean when you get 3 or 5 or 10 year--or lifetime!!!--manufacturer warranties?
I don't see lemon laws as protection against obsolescence, designed or otherwise. Personally, I'd be more pissed about "prevention of repairs" practices . . .
And finally, vote with your wallet. If you don't like stuff wearing out in what your expert opinion considers "too soon", then don't buy the product. Market forces, bitches!
Gather you have nothing meaningful to add about the conclusion so have a crack at me for "not getting past the first para"?
Remember it was me who posed the issue, you said it didn't even exist til I showed some some basic evidence.
Fact it, stuff is designed to fail now, many years ago (before our time I think though) it was all designed to last.
That's rather sad, and I submit it is kinda at odds with the law.
Make of that what you will Mr Kuza.
I agree simple everyday products that used to last, now are unusable in half the time...everyones in on their products lasting as little time as possible.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Gather you have nothing meaningful to add about the conclusion so have a crack at me for "not getting past the first para"?
Remember it was me who posed the issue, you said it didn't even exist til I showed some some basic evidence.
Fact it, stuff is designed to fail now, many years ago (before our time I think though) it was all designed to last.
That's rather sad, and I submit it is kinda at odds with the law.
Make of that what you will Mr Kuza.
A crack? Of course it was. DID you actually read past the first paragraph that confirmed your bias?
So, where is all this good stuff from before "now" that isn't falling apart or full of replacement parts? There should be houses FULL of TVs and washing machines from "recently, before now" all in perfect working order.
Fact is, you haven't specifically shown how companies are intentionally designing product to fail well before design specs of components allow . . . just a wiki link to all the generalized situations we all know and take for granted.
Don't confuse me asking for specific proof and picking holes in your logic with not believing that products are designed with a limited life time. And just generally having a crack at you.
What I make of it, is that you jumped in here to have a whinge like an old maid about the imaginary injustice of it all because your $100 DVD player from China, after a couple of years of hard use, crapped out in the middle of season 4 of Neighbors and left you hanging.
^^^ so lets say France brought in laws to combat planned obsolescence and built-in / planned lifespan.
They did that for no reason at all and you know better? How about you go run France then.
Further, and sorry I can't be bothered looking it up, but a poster here recently mentioned how a uni student was marked down in a design course for NOT designing in lifespan. Yeah, its not happening.
Anecdotally (sorry no peer reviewed gee whizz sh!t for you here) but seriously:
(1) smart phones that fail after 2-3 years and all the old push button ones still work - Disagree?
(2) ink cartridges for printers that are supplied with the new printer, ad still have ink but are programmed to give a "run out" signal early so you buy a new cartridge (fact)
(3) the worst one ever - style obsolescence, or backwards compatibility issues with software.
Humans really are the dumbest creatures ever. As an example of the former... we had big phones that got smaller and smaller. Then we needed bigger ones as the screen became functional. Yes, understandable. But the iPad to iPad mini to then bigger iPad again is ridiculous when there is essentially the same functionality. They sold us all on smaller, then bigger again!!! Dumb people fall all the time for having to have the latest.... and built in failure ensures the smart ones have to go for it also.
And you DID say all of this did not exist, 2mins on google will show you all these issues DO exist (and again, why some places have legislated against it)
Anyway all of this is borderline irrelevant to the original post. He said no warranty on the replacement. I said yes it must have warranty - as it has to, by law, last as long as "reasonably expected".
I don't expect you to do much reading at all. One more time then: Don't confuse me asking for specific proof and picking holes in your logic with not believing that products are designed with a limited life time. And just generally having a crack at you.
-------------
If the student didn't consider functional life-span of components, then he deserved to fail :D
(1) I've seen plenty of iPhone4s here still working and being used. Anecdote busted!
The problem with that and your general line of "not lasting like they used to" argument is the time base.
(2) Alleged and dismissed. As I read it (but I was skimming) it was annoying reminders to change the cartridge, not stopping use of the cartridge until it actually ran out. Quite possibly, it was a convenience thing--rather replace early than run out mid-print and ruin your pictures. . . .
BTW my latest printer cost $50. The ink cartridge replacements are $75 
(3) Not what you're moaning about; ignored.
-------------
Twice then: Don't confuse me asking for specific proof and picking holes in your logic with not believing that products are designed with a limited life time. And just generally having a crack at you.
-------------
Really, you're looking at this the wrong way: do you REALLY want stuff to last forever?
Think about your beloved 20-year-old home appliance . . . and then compare it to the latest. I don't want the TV I had even 10 years ago!
Now, we pay less for things that don't last so long but get better and better, and cheaper and cheaper. Economies of scale.
Imma gunna get off your lawn now, and let you wallow in the memory of the good old days of CRT TVs in a wooden cabinet, $2,000 Betamax players, LPs, and twin tub washing machines.
Interesting my Axis New Wave 2013 snapped as well after only little usage. I reckon it's a design flaw, have head a few people had problems with it.
I will repair mine and try to be more careful about it but not a happy camper...
I work in IT warranty repairs & the Australian consumer law is definitely a change to the warranty agreement that was needed, expensive equipment failing just outside a year with no option for coverage was not right. Unfortunately the agreement is in most cases exclusively between you the consumer and the retailer. From there the retailer can "ask" for the wholesaler, distributor, manufacturer etc to cover the repair but they are not obligated to meaning if it goes to fair trading and is awarded in your favor it comes straight out of the retailers pocket.
Personally unless dealing with a very large company I would not go down this path as it would easily result in either a huge jump in price or the end of the local stores that bend over backwards to help us out.
Not really, smart retailers will stop selling products that the wholesaler won't back up.
