"Durability" under sale of goods act
Guy Snape
Comet in January 2008.
According to http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf
"If a product that was faulty at the time of sale is returned to the
retailer, the buyer is legally entitled to ... a reasonable amount of
compensation (or "damages") for up to six years from the date of sale"
but since it was more than six months old:
"Generally, the buyer needs to demonstrate the goods were faulty at the
time of sale."
How exactly is one supposed to do this? I vaguely recall trying to
return something to Argos and they said I could send it back to the
manufacturer for testing at my own expense, which seems rather pointless
on a fifty quid microwave.
Any suggestions?
- guy
Philip Shore
I have been looking into consumer rights recently too.
There is some good info here:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchan
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/SGAknowyourrights/
Because it is more than six months old but also out of the 1yr warranty
period, it looks like you will have to show that the microwave has not
lasted a reasonable amount of time.
They might say you need to send it for testing but there is little point
if you are sure it is dead. You might want to check the fuse though!
Reasonable length of time is a tricky one. If you bought the bargain
basement mangers special microwave then I would say tough, but if it is
a well known brand then you would expect it to last more than 2 years.
Whatever you do, it looks like you will need to write a letter and
mention Section 75 Sales of Goods Act.
I am in a similar situation where I bought a �700 Sony TV that has
developed in intermittent fault in the first three years of life. I
didn't track this to the TV until 4.5 yrs old, plus the retailer has
gone bust. I bought it on a credit card so I must be able to get them to
play ball.
This next bit is more of a rant... :-)
I also had a boiler with a circuit board that didn't like heat so only
lasted 2 years before a �500 repair was needed. The manufacturer was not
sympathetic even though everyone in the trade knew how bad they were.
Infact most of the people where I live on a new housing estate had the
same boiler and had exactly the same problem. This issue ended up on
Watchdog and the manufacturer caved in.
In my opinion, chase these poor quality manufacturers. They make a
profit selling you poor goods, then they make a profit on the
replacement parts. Don't let them get away with it.
Phil.
Roland Perry
on Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Guy Snape <g...@snapefamily.theobvious.org.uk>
remarked:
Also depends how much use it has had. Warming up one TV dinner a week is
different to installing it in a canteen for constant use 12 hours a day.
--
Roland Perry
Guy Snape
> I have been looking into consumer rights recently too.
>
> There is some good info here:
> http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchan
> http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/SGAknowyourrights/
Thanks, I'll have a look.
> Because it is more than six months old but also out of the 1yr warranty
> period, it looks like you will have to show that the microwave has not
> lasted a reasonable amount of time.
>
> They might say you need to send it for testing but there is little point
> if you are sure it is dead. You might want to check the fuse though!
Not the fuse - everything about it works except for the actual heating.
>
> Reasonable length of time is a tricky one. If you bought the bargain
> basement mangers special microwave then I would say tough, but if it is
> a well known brand then you would expect it to last more than 2 years.
It's an LG, so I think reasonable to expect > 2 years.
- guy
daz9643
wrote:
> My microwave has just died. I still have the receipt, I bought it from
> Comet in January 2008.
>
>
> "If a product that was faulty at the time of sale is returned to the
> retailer, the buyer is legally entitled to ... a reasonable amount of
> compensation (or "damages") for up to six years from the date of sale"
>
> but since it was more than six months old:
>
> "Generally, the buyer needs to demonstrate the goods were faulty at the
> time of sale."
>
> How exactly is one supposed to do this? I vaguely recall trying to
> return something to Argos and they said I could send it back to the
> manufacturer for testing at my own expense, which seems rather pointless
> on a fifty quid microwave.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> - guy
I wouldn't bother spending petrol money going back to Comet as they
take a hands off approach. I had a panasonic bagless vacuum cleaner
which died twice within the 1 year warranty. They will send it to the
authorised repairer for you but they'll charge you for a courier which
is why i never shop at Comet any more. I know if you buy on-line then
its up to you to deal with repairs but i don't expect that from a high
street store.
Alan
> Philip Shore wrote:
>
> > I have been looking into consumer rights recently too.
> >
> > There is some good info here:
> > http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-ex
> > chan
> > http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/SGAk
> > nowyourrights/
>
> Thanks, I'll have a look.
>
Or better still, actually ring them directly on 08454 04 05 06. You
don't then get into the cam.misc amateur lawyer syndome of trying
interpret what you find in scattered documents on the web :-)
--
Espen H. Koht
<daf2a758-cf86-4952...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
daz9643 <b1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't bother spending petrol money going back to Comet as they
> take a hands off approach. I had a panasonic bagless vacuum cleaner
> which died twice within the 1 year warranty. They will send it to the
> authorised repairer for you but they'll charge you for a courier which
> is why i never shop at Comet any more.
I can't see how they can ask you to pay for the courier if you have
brought it into the shop. The responsibility for the repair or
replacement is with the retailer and it is hardly any of the customer's
concern how they process it once you've taken it back to them.
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> Guy Snape <g...@snapefamily.theobvious.org.uk> considered Fri, 20 Nov
> You may wish to point out to them that our Samsung is still going
> strong, after purchase in early 1987.
> LG (formerly Goldstar) are direct and local competitors with Samsung.
They are rather cheap though.
Roland Perry
Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.invalid> remarked:
>>I wouldn't bother spending petrol money going back to Comet as they
>>take a hands off approach. I had a panasonic bagless vacuum cleaner
>>which died twice within the 1 year warranty. They will send it to the
>>authorised repairer for you but they'll charge you for a courier which
>>is why i never shop at Comet any more. I know if you buy on-line then
>>its up to you to deal with repairs but i don't expect that from a high
>>street store.
>
>Insist on your rights under the Sale of Goods Act.
>Their costs in getting an appliance to or from a repairer are their
>own affair, and you should never have agreed to pay courier costs.
>If they refuse to repair it without payment reject the goods as
>unsatisfactory, and demand a refund.
But there's a time limit for rejecting goods, which is quite short (two
weeks is generally regarded as the absolute upper limit). And the reason
for rejection must be obvious, and before you've had any significant use
from the item.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Slatcher
> But there's a time limit for rejecting goods, which is quite short (two
> weeks is generally regarded as the absolute upper limit). And the reason
> for rejection must be obvious, and before you've had any significant use
> from the item.
The time period depends on the goods involved. After that period you
can still seek damages, which might amount to the replacement cost.
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
Roland Perry
Nov 2009, Steve Slatcher <steve.s...@pobox.com> remarked:
>> But there's a time limit for rejecting goods, which is quite short
>>(two weeks is generally regarded as the absolute upper limit). And
>>the reason for rejection must be obvious, and before you've had any
>>significant use from the item.
>
>The time period depends on the goods involved.
Indeed, and is anything from a few minutes to a couple of weeks.
>After that period you can still seek damages, which might amount to the
>replacement cost.
Yes, but not by using the "rejection" rule. You'd have to show why a
repair or replacement was unacceptable.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Slatcher
> In message <7mqj8eF...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:37:15 on Sat, 21
> Nov 2009, Steve Slatcher <steve.s...@pobox.com> remarked:
>>> But there's a time limit for rejecting goods, which is quite short
>>> (two weeks is generally regarded as the absolute upper limit). And
>>> the reason for rejection must be obvious, and before you've had any
>>> significant use from the item.
>>
>> The time period depends on the goods involved.
>
> Indeed, and is anything from a few minutes to a couple of weeks.
No - it could be longer. An example given on an official FAQ is skis
bought in a Summer sale.
Roland Perry
>> Indeed, and is anything from a few minutes to a couple of weeks.
>
>No - it could be longer. An example given on an official FAQ is skis
>bought in a Summer sale.
Interestingly enough, the Scottish Law Commission has just issued
recommendations[1] which propose enshrining exactly that situation in
law. Which tends to suggest it's not currently the understood position.
But I'm not sure they could introduce new law, unless it was also part
of the wider review of consumer protection legislation going on in
Brussels at the moment - the review that proposes to reign in [2] the
UK's "over-generous" (and much misunderstood) 6-year limit on proving a
manufacturing defect, and apparently also proposes to significantly
water down [3] the "right to reject" :(
Anyway, which "official FAQ" did you find this information on - they
aren't all definitive. For example, Consumer Direct staff (who I work
with quite a lot) unfortunately sometimes don't seem to be fully
briefed, and have turned people away in situations where I have fairly
easily succeeded in getting a customer a refund [4].
Some sites also conflate the issue of "rejecting" the goods (ie
cancelling the contract of purchase), with demanding a refund because a
repair or replacement of faulty goods is not acceptable. These are
confusingly similar, but legally quite different, situations.
[1] "We recommend that where it is reasonably foreseeable by, or
reasonably within the contemplation of, both parties that a longer
period will be needed to inspect the goods and to try them out in
practice, then a consumer should be able to argue for a period longer
than 30 days."
[2] <http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_noti
ces/pn150709eub.cfm>
[3] <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/
126/12604.htm#a3>
[4] Yes, I know in that case it's the other way round; being over-
pessimistic rather than over-optimistic.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Slatcher
> In message <7mr9fvF...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:56:44 on Sat, 21
> Nov 2009, Steve Slatcher <steve.s...@pobox.com> remarked:
>>>> The time period depends on the goods involved.
>>>
>>> Indeed, and is anything from a few minutes to a couple of weeks.
>>
>> No - it could be longer. An example given on an official FAQ is skis
>> bought in a Summer sale.
>
> Anyway, which "official FAQ" did you find this information on - they
> aren't all definitive.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html
Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how
long is that?
The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales
contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair to
all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days before
the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer Sale, may
be allowed a longer period by a court.
For example, Consumer Direct staff (who I work
> with quite a lot) unfortunately sometimes don't seem to be fully
> briefed, and have turned people away in situations where I have fairly
> easily succeeded in getting a customer a refund [4].
>
> Some sites also conflate the issue of "rejecting" the goods (ie
> cancelling the contract of purchase), with demanding a refund because a
> repair or replacement of faulty goods is not acceptable. These are
> confusingly similar, but legally quite different, situations.
>
> [1] "We recommend that where it is reasonably foreseeable by, or
> reasonably within the contemplation of, both parties that a longer
> period will be needed to inspect the goods and to try them out in
> practice, then a consumer should be able to argue for a period longer
> than 30 days."
>
> [2] <http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_noti
> ces/pn150709eub.cfm>
>
> [3] <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/
> 126/12604.htm#a3>
>
> [4] Yes, I know in that case it's the other way round; being over-
> pessimistic rather than over-optimistic.
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
Roland Perry
Nov 2009, Steve Slatcher <steve.s...@pobox.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <7mr9fvF...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:56:44 on Sat, 21
>> Nov 2009, Steve Slatcher <steve.s...@pobox.com> remarked:
>
>>>>> The time period depends on the goods involved.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and is anything from a few minutes to a couple of weeks.
>>>
>>> No - it could be longer. An example given on an official FAQ is skis
>>> bought in a Summer sale.
>>
>> Anyway, which "official FAQ" did you find this information on - they
>> aren't all definitive.
>
>http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html
>
>Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but
>how long is that?
>The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales
>contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair
>to all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days
>before the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer
>Sale, may be allowed a longer period by a court.
"...may be allowed..." they are keeping their options open there, but
like the Scottish Law Commission's remarks, this is based on the hope
you might find a sympathetic court, although it's useful there isn't a
"hard" upper time limit (something which the EU is trying to 'remedy' in
the trader's favour...)
Getting back to the OP's scenario, BERR [1] correctly continue:
"You would seek a full refund in scenarios such as those where
you had enjoyed absolutely no benefit from the goods. If you had
benefited from them then you would seek a partial refund as a
fair remedy."
So a "used" microwave cannot be rejected at all.
[1] Its been BIS since March 09, I wonder why these web pages have been
left behind?
--
Roland Perry
Guy Snape
> daz9643 <b1...@btinternet.com> considered Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:30:19
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>> I wouldn't bother spending petrol money going back to Comet as they
>> take a hands off approach. I had a panasonic bagless vacuum cleaner
>> which died twice within the 1 year warranty. They will send it to the
>> authorised repairer for you but they'll charge you for a courier which
>> is why i never shop at Comet any more. I know if you buy on-line then
>> its up to you to deal with repairs but i don't expect that from a high
>> street store.
>
> Your contract is with the vendor, not with their supplier.
> Insist on your rights under the Sale of Goods Act.
> Their costs in getting an appliance to or from a repairer are their
> own affair, and you should never have agreed to pay courier costs.
> If they refuse to repair it without payment reject the goods as
> unsatisfactory, and demand a refund.
OK, checked with trading standards and here's the rub: because the
microwave is more than 6 months old, it's my responsibility to prove
that it was inherently faulty when I bought it, so I could return it to
Comet but I'd have to pay �45 for them to send it to be tested. If it
was shown to have been faulty, they'd refund the �45, but I didn't think
it was very likely that would happen, since the people doing the testing
also work for Comet. Also, that's more than the cost of the microwave in
the first place. Comet said they could knock me 10% off the cost of a
new one, but that only made it the same price as getting it delivered
from amazon, so that's what I've done.
Thanks all for the helpful suggestions, but basically in cases like
this, the law is no use to the consumer whatsoever.
- guy
Roland Perry
on Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Guy Snape <g...@snapefamily.theobvious.org.uk>
remarked:
>it's my responsibility to prove that it was inherently faulty when I
>bought it, so I could return it to Comet but I'd have to pay �45 for
>them to send it to be tested
...
>Thanks all for the helpful suggestions, but basically in cases like
>this, the law is no use to the consumer whatsoever.
It's not really the law's fault that proving your case costs more than
the item is worth. Often that tipping point is rather more in the region
of �5000 than �50.
--
Roland Perry
Guy Snape
Fair enough, I suppose. I'm just getting slightly fed up of buying a new
microwave every few years - I don't have the same problem with TVs,
vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc.
- guy
Duncan Wood
<g...@snapefamily.theobvious.org.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <JCzOm.7948$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, at 17:28:09
>> on Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Guy Snape <g...@snapefamily.theobvious.org.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> it's my responsibility to prove that it was inherently faulty when I
>>> bought it, so I could return it to Comet but I'd have to pay ￜ45 for
>>> them to send it to be tested
>> ...
>>
>>> Thanks all for the helpful suggestions, but basically in cases like
>>> this, the law is no use to the consumer whatsoever.
>> It's not really the law's fault that proving your case costs more than
>> the item is worth. Often that tipping point is rather more in the
>> region of ￜ5000 than ￜ50.
>
> Fair enough, I suppose. I'm just getting slightly fed up of buying a new
> microwave every few years - I don't have the same problem with TVs,
> vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc.
>
> - guy
Sadly I suspect the answer is don't buy a cheap one. The 1000W combi
behind me's 14years old & still going.
Guy Snape
I suspect that too, but I'm not sure if I suspect it strongly enough to
back my suspicions with an extra ￜ100, as I'd be even more fed up if an
expensive one died after 2 or 3 years. The Daewoo I've ordered from
Amazon has lots of good reviews, so we'll see how it goes ... if you see
me here, moaning about it dying in a couple of years, you're welcome to
tell me you told me so. :-)
- g.
Richard Torrens (News)
Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
> Sadly I suspect the answer is don't buy a cheap one. The 1000W combi
> behind me's 14years old & still going.
14 years ago the standard of construction of all electronic gods was
generally better.
Manufacturers have learnt that there's money to be made in not repairing
old goods and not making them so they last.
I just replaced a thermoswitch in a gas tumble dryer - it is about 20
years old! Took that long for the thermoswitch to drop to too low a
temperature.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!
Duncan Wood
<News+...@torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <op.u3vkjjgyhaghkf@lucy>,
> Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sadly I suspect the answer is don't buy a cheap one. The 1000W combi
>> behind me's 14years old & still going.
>
> 14 years ago the standard of construction of all electronic gods was
> generally better.
>
> Manufacturers have learnt that there's money to be made in not repairing
> old goods and not making them so they last.
>
> I just replaced a thermoswitch in a gas tumble dryer - it is about 20
> years old! Took that long for the thermoswitch to drop to too low a
> temperature.
>
Yep, I remember how TVs where so reliable that there wasn't even a market
for repairing them.
Michael Kilpatrick
> In article <op.u3vkjjgyhaghkf@lucy>,
> Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Sadly I suspect the answer is don't buy a cheap one. The 1000W combi
>>behind me's 14years old & still going.
>
>
> 14 years ago the standard of construction of all electronic gods was
> generally better.
>
> Manufacturers have learnt that there's money to be made in not repairing
> old goods and not making them so they last.
Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let the
manufacturers sweat, for once.
Michael
Duncan Wood
Do you really want to pay for that?
--
Duncan Wood
Roland Perry
Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Michael Kilpatrick
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> remarked:
>Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let
>the manufacturers sweat, for once.
That's not something we could do nationally, and the European law is
currently heading for lower (rather than higher) standards. Time to
lobby in Brussels if you want to change things, it's on the table at the
moment.
I know people tend to dislike EU law, but in this case I think we
probably have stuff like the Distance Selling Regs & Electronic Commerce
Regs, because of Europe, that we wouldn't have had otherwise (the
retailers would have lobbied in the UK to avoid any such locally
invented regulation).
--
Roland Perry
Michael Kilpatrick
Yes.
Michael
Michael Kilpatrick
> In message <8aKdnUwxn9I-W5DW...@pipex.net>, at 00:07:09 on
> Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Michael Kilpatrick
> <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>> electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let
>> the manufacturers sweat, for once.
>
>
> That's not something we could do nationally,
As long as we accept any consequences, we could do whatever we want
nationally provided that it doesn't actually break any higher
authorities deriving from the EU or other treaties.
Is there anything in the EU constitution that would prevent us from
doing so?
> and the European law is
> currently heading for lower (rather than higher) standards. Time to
> lobby in Brussels if you want to change things, it's on the table at the
> moment.
I'm surprised to hear that in this case the EU is heading for lower
standards rather than higher. Why? So that we can carry on importing
even greater quantities of cheap Chinese shit that breaks after a year,
and do even more to put European manufacturers out of business?
Michael
Fevric J. Glandules
> Do you really want to pay for that?
I figure it'd be cheaper in the long run. How much more expensive would
a toaster built to last five years, rather than two, be?
Alan
If you want that sort of cover - presumably you can pay for extended
warranty.
Most consumers, at time of purchase look for cheap first....
--
Kieran Mansley
> If you want that sort of cover - presumably you can pay for extended
> warranty.
There's a big difference there though: in what Michael has proposed, the
manufacturer would be paying for the extended warranty, and so have a
strong motivation to make the products more reliable. This cost would of
course be passed on to the consumer in the purchase price, but
competition and the fact that it's much cheaper to make something that
doesn't need fixing than to fix it later, would mean the manufacturer
would almost certainly take the route of making more reliable products.
This would result in better value for everyone. The current situation in
many cases favours the manufacturer who makes less reliable products,
resulting in a race to the bottom.
Kieran
Michael Kilpatrick
Exactly. I reckon that those dodgy extended warranties that are
currently offered with many domestic products from certain retailers are
at rates which, if all products had them applied by default, would be
raking in the money at well over the odds. I believe in Kieran's
analysis in that an increased statutory warranty would result in a
better overall deal, both in financial terms and in quality of goods.
Michael
Roland Perry
Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>>> electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let the
>>> manufacturers sweat, for once.
>>
>> Do you really want to pay for that?
>
>I figure it'd be cheaper in the long run. How much more expensive would
>a toaster built to last five years, rather than two, be?
Given that a cheap toaster is about a fiver, I'd say 10x
Argos Value Range 2 Slice White Toaster. 421/9608 �4.47
Breville 4 Slice Countdown Toaster. 423/1583 �48.99
And they (Argos) seem to think an extra "3 Year Replacement Product
Cover" for that item is worth... �9.99
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>>>electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let
>>>the manufacturers sweat, for once.
>> That's not something we could do nationally,
>
>As long as we accept any consequences, we could do whatever we want
>nationally provided that it doesn't actually break any higher
>authorities deriving from the EU or other treaties.
>
>Is there anything in the EU constitution that would prevent us from
>doing so?
If there's a new Directive which specifies the point at which a trader's
liability ceases, we are obliged to implement it.
>> and the European law is currently heading for lower (rather than
>>higher) standards. Time to lobby in Brussels if you want to change
>>things, it's on the table at the moment.
>
>I'm surprised to hear that in this case the EU is heading for lower
>standards rather than higher. Why?
Mainly (if I have got the right end of the stick with an extremely long
drawn out process) so that all states can agree a common set of rules.
That means some will have to raise the bar, and others lower it. They
also want the same time limits for "cooling off periods" irrespective of
whether the transaction was online or offline [1], which means
additional compromises for some member states.
[1] To include eg doorstep selling.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Kieran Mansley <kie...@NOSPAM.gtemail.net> remarked:
>The current situation in many cases favours the manufacturer who makes
>less reliable products, resulting in a race to the bottom.
Which is what the consumer apparently wants.
Or is this a rare case where the collective cam.misc free marketeers are
prepared to admit that maybe, sometimes, "nanny does know best"??
--
Roland Perry
Fevric J. Glandules
> In message <hell7h$52q$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, at 10:28:02 on
> Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>I figure it'd be cheaper in the long run. How much more expensive would
>>a toaster built to last five years, rather than two, be?
>
> Given that a cheap toaster is about a fiver, I'd say 10x
>
> Argos Value Range 2 Slice White Toaster. 421/9608 �4.47
>
> Breville 4 Slice Countdown Toaster. 423/1583 �48.99
As a comparison, that's just silly.
The question is - how much extra would it cost to build the Argos Value
product so it would last five years rather than two?
Alan
Probably more than one would think. Presumably it wouldn't just be the
additional cost of making the device a bit better, it would have to
factor in the vast reduction in sales and loss in production jobs etc.
On the other hand, if a bit more was spent in making things repairable,
there might be a compensating increase in that side of the market.
It's probably complicated :-)
--
Brian L Johnson
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> > In message <hell7h$52q$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, at 10:28:02
>> > on Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid>
>> > remarked:
>> > > I figure it'd be cheaper in the long run. How much more
>> > > expensive would a toaster built to last five years, rather than
>> > > two, be?
>> >
>> > Given that a cheap toaster is about a fiver, I'd say 10x
>> >
>> > Argos Value Range 2 Slice White Toaster. 421/9608 ￜ4.47
>> >
>> > Breville 4 Slice Countdown Toaster. 423/1583 ￜ48.99
>>
>> As a comparison, that's just silly.
>>
>> The question is - how much extra would it cost to build the Argos
>> Value product so it would last five years rather than two?
>
> Probably more than one would think. Presumably it wouldn't just be the
> additional cost of making the device a bit better, it would have to
> factor in the vast reduction in sales and loss in production jobs etc.
>
> On the other hand, if a bit more was spent in making things repairable,
> there might be a compensating increase in that side of the market.
>
> It's probably complicated :-)
Dualit do 2 sorts of home-consumer toasters.
The (very) expensive one is repairable. The not-so expensive one has
System Zero tamper-proof screws sealing it and is, hence, not repairable.
And of a MUCH lower quality.
--
Brian L Johnson
Cambridge Computing
Duncan Wood
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.spamfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Duncan Wood wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:07:09 -0000, Michael Kilpatrick
>> <mic...@mtkilpatrick.spamfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>>> electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let
>>> the manufacturers sweat, for once.
>>>
>>> Michael
>> Do you really want to pay for that?
>
> Yes.
>
> Michael
So why not just buy goods which have a five tear warranty? Personally I
don't want a battery on the laptop that lasts five years, I'd rather have
one a 1/3 of the weight.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
Then buy expensive stuff, and it will probably last that long or more
anyway, warranty or no warranty. Other people can buy cheap tat, and
they'll get what they pay for as well. Seems fair enough to me.
Mak
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <4b0e5cdb$0$2539$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 10:47:55 on
I prefer the situation where I have a choice between good and
expensive or cheap and shoddy. Sometimes, the latter is perfectly
adequate for my needs, and I don't want to be forced to pay more just
because other people have unrealistic expectations of how long a cheap
item can be expected to last.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been considered here, either, is
that the longevity of most consumer goods is related to use, rather
than time per se. A toaster that's used once a week will last longer
than one used every day. And one used several times a day will fail
earlier than the one used only once a day. So to meet a legal
requirement for a five year warranty for everyone, irrespective of
their usage pattern, manufacturers would be forced to design for five
years at intensive use, not average use. So a typical user wouldn't be
paying the extra for something to last five years instead of two,
they'd be paying the extra for soemthing that will probably last them
ten or fifteen.
Mark
Michael Kilpatrick
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:13:01 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Duncan Wood wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:07:09 -0000, Michael Kilpatrick
>>><mic...@mtkilpatrick.spamfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>>>>electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let
>>>>the manufacturers sweat, for once.
>>>>
>>>>Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you really want to pay for that?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> Then buy expensive stuff, and it will probably last that long or more
I'm not interested in "probably". I can't guarantee that something
marketed as being "high-end" is in fact a top quality product. There's
only so much research a consumer can do. At least if there were a
statutory 5 year warranty then I wouldn't have to worry about it.
> anyway, warranty or no warranty. Other people can buy cheap tat, and
> they'll get what they pay for as well. Seems fair enough to me.
It's only fair if the pressure of the cheapo-buyers isn't such that it
makes it nigh on impossible to continue selling the more expensive
longer-lasting products. What actually happens is that I find that the
market for the goods that I want has all but completely evaporated
thanks to other peoples'happiness just to throw manufactured goods away,
at great cost to the environment, after two years.
Michael
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:13:01 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>
>>>Duncan Wood wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:07:09 -0000, Michael Kilpatrick
>>>><mic...@mtkilpatrick.spamfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>>>>>electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let
>>>>>the manufacturers sweat, for once.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you really want to pay for that?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>
>> Then buy expensive stuff, and it will probably last that long or more
>
>I'm not interested in "probably". I can't guarantee that something
>marketed as being "high-end" is in fact a top quality product. There's
>only so much research a consumer can do. At least if there were a
>statutory 5 year warranty then I wouldn't have to worry about it.
So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
>> anyway, warranty or no warranty. Other people can buy cheap tat, and
>> they'll get what they pay for as well. Seems fair enough to me.
>
>It's only fair if the pressure of the cheapo-buyers isn't such that it
>makes it nigh on impossible to continue selling the more expensive
>longer-lasting products. What actually happens is that I find that the
>market for the goods that I want has all but completely evaporated
>thanks to other peoples'happiness just to throw manufactured goods away,
>at great cost to the environment, after two years.
You must be shopping in the wrong places, then, as I've never had any
difficulty buying consumer goods that last several years. My current
dishwasher, fridge/freezer and TVs (three of them) are all at least
five years old, and still running perfectly well. The only newer major
appliance in the house at the moment is the washing machine. (There
will be at least one newer TV in the house after the January sales,
but that's because I want HD, not because the one I've got is broken).
Mark
Fevric J. Glandules
<snip>
> So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
> want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
Do you object, then, to the *existing* legislation regarding minimum
quality levels? (Not that it is couched in those terms).
My argument is that forcing the makers to guarantee products for three
or five years, rather than the one or two it is now, would make the
Argos Value toaster only *slightly* more expensive - but reduce overall
expenditure on toasters, allowing us all to spend more on other more
interesting things.
Roland Perry
>>>I figure it'd be cheaper in the long run. How much more expensive would
>>>a toaster built to last five years, rather than two, be?
>>
>> Given that a cheap toaster is about a fiver, I'd say 10x
>>
>> Argos Value Range 2 Slice White Toaster. 421/9608 �4.47
>>
>> Breville 4 Slice Countdown Toaster. 423/1583 �48.99
>
>As a comparison, that's just silly.
I picked the cheapest (value toaster), and a higher (not highest) priced
item that seemed likely to be better built.
>The question is - how much extra would it cost to build the Argos Value
>product so it would last five years rather than two?
I'm sure you have access to the Argos website - which of the products on
sale would most fit your description?
--
Roland Perry
Fevric J. Glandules
> In message <hem6re$q6t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, at 15:28:46 on
> Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> Argos Value Range 2 Slice White Toaster. 421/9608 �4.47
>>>
>>> Breville 4 Slice Countdown Toaster. 423/1583 �48.99
>>
>>As a comparison, that's just silly.
>
> I picked the cheapest (value toaster), and a higher (not highest) priced
> item that seemed likely to be better built.
...and had four slots, and digitababble gizmos, and a brand name...
>>The question is - how much extra would it cost to build the Argos Value
>>product so it would last five years rather than two?
>
> I'm sure you have access to the Argos website - which of the products on
> sale would most fit your description?
Without looking at the Argos website, I can say: none. This is the
point!
Jon Green
> I prefer the situation where I have a choice between good and
> expensive or cheap and shoddy.
Likewise. For example, I was at a trade show earlier this week. I
wanted a cheap printer/scanner for the stand. It only had to survive
two days. I got an HP all-in-one that cost �45.
Apart from *GRRRR* not having a USB lead (leaving me in a hotel room the
previous night unable to get the laptop completely set up with it, or
any advance materials printed), it did admirably. A machine that was
guaranteed for five years -- if any such exists -- would have cost
several times more, and the extra cost would have been completely wasted.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Duncan Wood
Why would making a completely separate UK product line be only
fractionally more expensive?
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Thu, 26 Nov
> 2009 19:44:46 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:19:12 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:13:01 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick put finger to
>>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Duncan Wood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:07:09 -0000, Michael Kilpatrick
>>>>>> <mic...@mtkilpatrick.spamfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>>>>>>> electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and
>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>> the manufacturers sweat, for once.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really want to pay for that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then buy expensive stuff, and it will probably last that long or more
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in "probably". I can't guarantee that something
>>> marketed as being "high-end" is in fact a top quality product. There's
>>> only so much research a consumer can do. At least if there were a
>>> statutory 5 year warranty then I wouldn't have to worry about it.
>>
>> So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
>> want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
>
> No, it's totally fucking impossible.
> The crap merchants have driven the price and quality down so much that
> it is now expected that white box items like microwaves will only
> survive a couple of years.
> More expensive just gives you extra bells and whistles, not higher
> build quality.
>
Panasonic, Miele & Whirlpool will all still sell you a well built
microwave for slightly less in absolute terms than they would a decade
ago. They're hardly difficult to find.
> If the 5 year life was mandatory there would be massive economies of
> scale in manufacturing goods to that standard (although that is still
> vastly lower than the standards we expected only a couple of decades
> ago).
You've got some very rose tinted spectacles. Where could you buy a
microwave oven for ￜ50 in 1989 that was guaranteed for 5 years?
>>
>>>> anyway, warranty or no warranty. Other people can buy cheap tat, and
>>>> they'll get what they pay for as well. Seems fair enough to me.
>>>
>>> It's only fair if the pressure of the cheapo-buyers isn't such that it
>>> makes it nigh on impossible to continue selling the more expensive
>>> longer-lasting products. What actually happens is that I find that the
>>> market for the goods that I want has all but completely evaporated
>>> thanks to other peoples'happiness just to throw manufactured goods
>>> away,
>>> at great cost to the environment, after two years.
>>
>> You must be shopping in the wrong places, then, as I've never had any
>> difficulty buying consumer goods that last several years. My current
>> dishwasher, fridge/freezer and TVs (three of them) are all at least
>> five years old, and still running perfectly well. The only newer major
>> appliance in the house at the moment is the washing machine. (There
>> will be at least one newer TV in the house after the January sales,
>> but that's because I want HD, not because the one I've got is broken).
>>
>> Mark
>
> Then you've either been incredibly lucky, or you have enough money to
> only buy the most expensive kit.
> Why do you wish to deny everyone the chance to enjoy the reliability
> that you have?
> Do you think it should be reserved for the rich?
> Or do you have shares in companies that make cheap crap, and see the
> golden goose of repeated unnecessary sales as a cash cow?
I haven't noticed the price of reliable kit going up, there's just a lot
more cheap & less reliable stuff available, do think poor people shouldn't
be allowed to buy cheap consumer goods?
Fevric J. Glandules
In My World, this'd be done at the EU level.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> So why not just buy goods which have a five tear warranty?
> Personally I don't want a battery on the laptop that lasts five
> years, I'd rather have one a 1/3 of the weight.
My laptop has a three year warranty but only one year on the battery.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Ben C
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:41:39 -0000, Phil W Lee <phil lee-family me <"uk>">
> wrote:
>
>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Thu, 26 Nov
>> 2009 19:44:46 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>> So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
>>> want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
>>
>> No, it's totally fucking impossible.
>> The crap merchants have driven the price and quality down so much that
>> it is now expected that white box items like microwaves will only
>> survive a couple of years.
>> More expensive just gives you extra bells and whistles, not higher
>> build quality.
>>
>
> Panasonic, Miele & Whirlpool will all still sell you a well built
> microwave for slightly less in absolute terms than they would a decade
> ago. They're hardly difficult to find.
I've had Panasonics and they still catch fire after a couple of years.
The other feature I'd like, besides not blowing up, is not bleeping
every two fucking minutes for the rest of time after something's
finished. They all seem to do that these days.
Although I agree with Mark Goodge in principle, I don't know of anyone
who actually makes these Heavy Duty microwaves we seek.
Fevric J. Glandules
> Although I agree with Mark Goodge in principle, I don't know of anyone
> who actually makes these Heavy Duty microwaves we seek.
The usual suspects - Sanyo, Samsung, etc. Googling "commercial
microwave" does the trick. E.g.
http://www.carltonsales.co.uk/viewproductdetail.asp?pid=3873&back=H
OTOH a "light duty" commercial oven probably counts as "heavy duty" in
a domestic context:
http://www.nisbets.co.uk/products/productdetail.asp?productCode=G316&gpf=IncVat&mkt_id=PC1
and is considerably cheaper.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>> I prefer the situation where I have a choice between good and
>> expensive or cheap and shoddy.
>
> Likewise. For example, I was at a trade show earlier this week. I wanted
> a cheap printer/scanner for the stand. It only had to survive two days.
> I got an HP all-in-one that cost �45.
>
> Apart from *GRRRR* not having a USB lead (leaving me in a hotel room the
> previous night unable to get the laptop completely set up with it, or
> any advance materials printed), it did admirably. A machine that was
> guaranteed for five years -- if any such exists -- would have cost
> several times more, and the extra cost would have been completely wasted.
OTOH I just bought a Lexmark All-in-one for �48 which has a three year
warranty. Mind you, it is end-of-line so was reduced.
Michael Kilpatrick
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:19:12 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:13:01 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick put finger to
>>>keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Duncan Wood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:07:09 -0000, Michael Kilpatrick
>>>>><mic...@mtkilpatrick.spamfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps we should just introduce a statutory 5 year warranty on all
>>>>>>electric, electronic and mechanical goods of any description and let
>>>>>>the manufacturers sweat, for once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you really want to pay for that?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then buy expensive stuff, and it will probably last that long or more
>>
>>I'm not interested in "probably". I can't guarantee that something
>>marketed as being "high-end" is in fact a top quality product. There's
>>only so much research a consumer can do. At least if there were a
>>statutory 5 year warranty then I wouldn't have to worry about it.
>
>
> So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
> want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
Don't insult me by calling me lazy when you've got no idea how much time
I actually spend looking for products. I clearly wouldn't have said
"only so much research" if I hadn't actually spent a lot of time looking
for reviews and opinions of washing machines when I bought one last
December. Not only that, the bloody thing wasn't even for our hours it
was for my tenants in the house I own in Cherry Hinton.
>>
>>It's only fair if the pressure of the cheapo-buyers isn't such that it
>>makes it nigh on impossible to continue selling the more expensive
>>longer-lasting products. What actually happens is that I find that the
>>market for the goods that I want has all but completely evaporated
>>thanks to other peoples'happiness just to throw manufactured goods away,
>>at great cost to the environment, after two years.
>
>
> You must be shopping in the wrong places, then, as I've never had any
> difficulty buying consumer goods that last several years.
Lucky you. Of course, I could say the same thing. But on other hand I
could have bought exactly the same products and found that one of them
failed after two years. You don't just buy an expensive, supposedly
top-end, product and have a 100% probability of it not failing within 3
years.
Michael
Michael Kilpatrick
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> I prefer the situation where I have a choice between good and
>> expensive or cheap and shoddy.
>
>
> Likewise. For example, I was at a trade show earlier this week. I
> wanted a cheap printer/scanner for the stand. It only had to survive
> two days. I got an HP all-in-one that cost �45.
>
> Apart from *GRRRR* not having a USB lead (leaving me in a hotel room the
> previous night unable to get the laptop completely set up with it, or
> any advance materials printed), it did admirably. A machine that was
> guaranteed for five years -- if any such exists -- would have cost
> several times more, and the extra cost would have been completely wasted.
>
Aside from the obvious inconvenience of being forced to buy something
more expensive than you might have wished for, what excuse is three for
thinking it acceptable for someone in your position to get HP (or other)
to manufacture an entire printer for you for no other purpose than two
days' use? Have you since thrown the printer away? I might be forgiven
for imagining that you have. If that is case, it's exactly the sort of
environmental vandalism and grotesque waste of natural resources and
enery that is encouraged by the market in throw-away, short-life, cheap tat.
Besides, couldn't you have picked up a second-hand one?
Most people seem to have accepted (whether somewhat begrudginly or not)
that, through our local authorities, we have to recycle more of our
waste and have to pay a little more than we might otherwise if we simply
had lots of landfill space to dump our two-day old printers in. Why
then, should we not also accept that we should all pay more at the
retail counter for goods which are designed to last much longer and not
end up in landfill?
Michael
Duncan Wood
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.spamfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> I prefer the situation where I have a choice between good and
>>> expensive or cheap and shoddy.
>> Likewise. For example, I was at a trade show earlier this week. I
>> wanted a cheap printer/scanner for the stand. It only had to survive
>> two days. I got an HP all-in-one that cost ￜ45.
>> Apart from *GRRRR* not having a USB lead (leaving me in a hotel room
>> the previous night unable to get the laptop completely set up with it,
>> or any advance materials printed), it did admirably. A machine that
>> was guaranteed for five years -- if any such exists -- would have cost
>> several times more, and the extra cost would have been completely
>> wasted.
>>
>
> Aside from the obvious inconvenience of being forced to buy something
> more expensive than you might have wished for, what excuse is three for
> thinking it acceptable for someone in your position to get HP (or other)
> to manufacture an entire printer for you for no other purpose than two
> days' use? Have you since thrown the printer away? I might be forgiven
> for imagining that you have. If that is case, it's exactly the sort of
> environmental vandalism and grotesque waste of natural resources and
> enery that is encouraged by the market in throw-away, short-life, cheap
> tat.
>
> Besides, couldn't you have picked up a second-hand one?
>
> Most people seem to have accepted (whether somewhat begrudginly or not)
> that, through our local authorities, we have to recycle more of our
> waste and have to pay a little more than we might otherwise if we simply
> had lots of landfill space to dump our two-day old printers in. Why
> then, should we not also accept that we should all pay more at the
> retail counter for goods which are designed to last much longer and not
> end up in landfill?
>
>
> Michael
The bit that's baffling me is why you think that extending product life by
a factor of 5 will be only slightly more expensive?
Jon Green
> Aside from the obvious inconvenience of being forced to buy something
> more expensive than you might have wished for, what excuse is three for
> thinking it acceptable for someone in your position to get HP (or other)
> to manufacture an entire printer for you for no other purpose than two
> days' use? Have you since thrown the printer away?
No, of course not; it'll carry on giving service in future UK shows.
But compare the �39+VAT all-in-one (HP C4680, if you care) to the �100
cost of hiring a badge scanner from the expo organisers, and the
economies become clear. (Besides, the badge scanner can't print, a
facility that came in _very_ useful!) The capex for the printer is
written down as expo costs. Basically, everything from hereonin is
clear profit.
OTOH, if I'm setting up an exhibition stand in a US trade show, I'm not
going to lug a printer from the UK -- I'll buy a cheapy like this, and
give it away either as a prize or as a gift at the end of the expo
rather than paying to ship it back. In any case (um, pun unintended), I
wouldn't give it great odds of surviving the gentle ministrations of
baggage handlers.
Actually, I'm rather chuffed at the deal we got -- the Best Buy (US)
website lists the same printer at $99.99! And that doesn't include
state sales tax, of course.
> Besides, couldn't you have picked up a second-hand one?
Not at 1530 on a Sunday afternoon, the day before the expo, when it
became clear we needed one, no. I could have taken the (considerably
more expensive) office all-in-one, but stuff on expo stands "walks" and
gets abused, and in any case the cheapy was about a quarter the weight.
Ben Hutchings
> On 2009-11-27, Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:41:39 -0000, Phil W Lee <phil lee-family me <"uk>">
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Thu, 26 Nov
>>> 2009 19:44:46 +0000 the perfect time to write:
> [...]
>>>> So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
>>>> want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
>>>
>>> No, it's totally fucking impossible.
>>> The crap merchants have driven the price and quality down so much that
>>> it is now expected that white box items like microwaves will only
>>> survive a couple of years.
>>> More expensive just gives you extra bells and whistles, not higher
>>> build quality.
>>>
>>
>> Panasonic, Miele & Whirlpool will all still sell you a well built
>> microwave for slightly less in absolute terms than they would a decade
>> ago. They're hardly difficult to find.
>
> I've had Panasonics and they still catch fire after a couple of years.
What *are* you putting in them?
My Panasonic microwave is fully functional after 10 years.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.
Malcolm
i did wonder that - mine (combi) is about 4 and a half
Mark Goodge
finger to keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
>> want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
>
>Do you object, then, to the *existing* legislation regarding minimum
>quality levels? (Not that it is couched in those terms).
No, because at the moment the law only reqires goods to be of
sufficient quality for the purpose for which they are sold. I think
that's reasonable. I'm not opposed to consumer protection legislation
per se, only where it acts against the best interests of the tyical
consumer.
>My argument is that forcing the makers to guarantee products for three
>or five years, rather than the one or two it is now, would make the
>Argos Value toaster only *slightly* more expensive - but reduce overall
>expenditure on toasters, allowing us all to spend more on other more
>interesting things.
I disagree with your claim. I think that if it were possible to make
things last much longer for a small increase in price, then there
would already be a strong competitive advantage to be gained by doing
so.
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Thu, 26 Nov
>2009 19:44:46 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>So why should other people have to pay so that you can be lazy? You
>>want quality, then make the effort to find it. It's not hard.
>
>No, it's totally fucking impossible.
It clearly isn't, given my experience.
>>
>>You must be shopping in the wrong places, then, as I've never had any
>>difficulty buying consumer goods that last several years. My current
>>dishwasher, fridge/freezer and TVs (three of them) are all at least
>>five years old, and still running perfectly well. The only newer major
>>appliance in the house at the moment is the washing machine. (There
>>will be at least one newer TV in the house after the January sales,
>>but that's because I want HD, not because the one I've got is broken).
>
>Then you've either been incredibly lucky, or you have enough money to
>only buy the most expensive kit.
I'm certainly not rich. Most of my current stuff was bought while I
was working for a charity and on a salary well below the national
average. I'm now earning far more than that, and in a position to
replace those things with more expensive ones when they do break or I
decide to upgrade them, but I don't think I'll have much difficulty
finding sufficiently reliable products when I do.
>Why do you wish to deny everyone the chance to enjoy the reliability
>that you have?
I don't. Tell you what, if you don't think you can find reliable
products, then the next time you need to buy something, drop me an
email. I'll find you one that I reckon will last a reasonable length
of time (five years, if that's what you're after), and then when you
buy it you can pay me a finder's fee for the research I've done on
your behalf. In return, if it does fail due to shoddy workmanship
within the length of time you specified as a minimum, then I'll not
only refund the fee but compensate you pro rata for the shortfall in
longevity. Do we have a deal?
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>The other feature I'd like, besides not blowing up, is not bleeping
>every two fucking minutes for the rest of time after something's
>finished. They all seem to do that these days.
>
>Although I agree with Mark Goodge in principle, I don't know of anyone
>who actually makes these Heavy Duty microwaves we seek.
In that, I agree with you. The other thing you can't seem to find
these days is a microwave with a full keypad, instead of either a knob
or some stupid press-five-times-for-five-minutes thing. I've got a
(relatively cheap) Saisho microwave that I bought from Dixons (as was)
over ten years ago, and it's still going strong. The thing I like
about it is the fact that it has a full 0-9 numeric keypad, meaning I
can key in any cooking time whatsoever as precisely as I want at any
of ten power settings (1 being the lowest, and not selecting a number
at all means full power). The only thing wrong with it is that it's
underpowered by contemporary standards, being only 600W instead of the
more common 800W, but for flexibility it's unbeatable.
Paul Bird
electrical good we've got in the house is from Panasonic, they work
well, they last, they're not unduly expensive, they are well designed,
from memory CRT TV, DVD/Recorder, telephones, microwave, breadmaker
(superb) I'll leave it there.
All these goods have been with us at least two years and the TV for over
10 (it's ex-rental). I can't see any problem in buying goods that last,
and no I have no financial link to Panasonic they just make well
designed and researched products. YMMV.
PB
Fevric J. Glandules
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:13:56 +0000 (UTC), Fevric J. Glandules put
> finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>My argument is that forcing the makers to guarantee products for three
>>or five years, rather than the one or two it is now, would make the
>>Argos Value toaster only *slightly* more expensive - but reduce overall
>>expenditure on toasters, allowing us all to spend more on other more
>>interesting things.
>
> I disagree with your claim. I think that if it were possible to make
> things last much longer for a small increase in price, then there
> would already be a strong competitive advantage to be gained by doing
> so.
I think that at the Argos Value end of things, it's *all* about price.
Michael Kilpatrick
So, you can't picture Panasonic getting all het up about legislation
that might see a greatly increased statutory warranty, are you saying?
And that you don't imagine that Panasonic's products would have to
increase much in price in order to account for such a regime?
Michael
Alex Selby
I agree. I've recently upgraded from a Panasonic microwave to another
Panasonic. I've had the old one for about 10+ years and it still works
pretty well, though it sometimes rattles now while it's cooking. (If
anyone wants to take it off my hands for a nominal fee, then they're
welcome to it! It's 800W, cream coloured, smallish.)
(By the way, I believe they're a good quality make, but I think their
lock-in camera battery policy is annoying and that would deter me from
buying one of their new cameras.)
Paul Bird
No I can't. I think they'd laugh in your face and say their goods will
last that long anyway, and yes if you want to bet that they would put
that in writing there's a tenner on the table I'll never have to pay.
BTW I well remember when microwaves suddenly started appearing for �35
and I thought that's just bloody silly, you won't catch me buying one of
those and I never have, you tend to get what you pay for and I've
learned that over 53 years.
PB
Guy Snape
> I've been reading this thread in disbelief. Practically every
> electrical good we've got in the house is from Panasonic, they work
> well, they last, they're not unduly expensive, they are well designed,
> from memory CRT TV, DVD/Recorder, telephones, microwave, breadmaker
> (superb) I'll leave it there.
I have to say, our panasonic dvd recorder conked out after just under
two years. Thank goodness I bought it from Robert Sayle - they gave me a
full refund which paid for a humax hdr. :-)
- g.
Jon Green
> I agree. I've recently upgraded from a Panasonic microwave to another
> Panasonic. I've had the old one for about 10+ years and it still works
> pretty well, though it sometimes rattles now while it's cooking. (If
> anyone wants to take it off my hands for a nominal fee, then they're
> welcome to it! It's 800W, cream coloured, smallish.)
>
> (By the way, I believe they're a good quality make, but I think their
> lock-in camera battery policy is annoying and that would deter me from
> buying one of their new cameras.)
Not sure what you mean. I got a DMC-FZ28 last year, just after they'd
come onto the market, and aftermarket batteries were already available
(in fact, I got one in the accessories bundle).
Oh, and it's an excellent camera. Weaned me off Olympus! (Well that,
and Olympus' past tendency to need xD cards when no-one else much uses
them.)
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> "Duncan Wood" <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009
> So my perfectly functioning Samsung microwave bought in early 1987 is
> a figment of my imagination?
> The only problem is that by modern standards it's not very powerful,
> and there are now 6 of us, not 2.
> I don't remember what it cost, but I do remember that when it was
> bought (for us, as a wedding present) we were queried as to whether
> one that cheap was what we really wanted.
With a five year guarantee?
> Not when it's a scam to get them to buy it regularly every 2 years,
> instead of just when they need to upgrade to a larger or more powerful
> model.
> That would make the 2nd hand (but still perfectly serviceable) ones
> from upgrades available to poor people even cheaper than the new ones
> are at present.
I don't remember there being a large supply of cheap functional 2nd hand
microwaves when I was a student.
Alex Selby
It doesn't apply to all models, and it looks like something they might
be bringing in for new ones, so you might be safe. The trick is they
claim that "unauthorised" batteries can be a "safety hazard", so
they've gone the way of printer ink manufacturers and somehow chipped
their batteries.
A couple of months ago I was considering buying a DMC-TZ7 (= DMC-ZS3
in the US), which at the time was on sale with firmware version 1.1
and would accept any 3rd party battery. However, if you upgrade it to
firmware 1.2, as you are encouraged to, then it will no longer accept
any 3rd party battery, and that will be the _only_ effect of
"upgrading" to 1.2. (See the official notice at
http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/TZ7_ZS3/index.html
and also http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/info/dsc_battery.html
where you can see there are many other affected models. Slashdot
article: http://bit.ly/12sFdX)
I'm guessing that when the present stock clears out, future cameras
will be sold with this feature already there without the user needing
to "upgrade" anything.
I (very) briefly wondered if Panasonic might just be doing it to cover
themselves against being sued by someone whose 3rd party battery
catches fire, but I'm now pretty convinced they're just doing a
make-money-on-consumables-printer-ink thing because (1) I reckon these
battery safety issues are very rare and exaggerated, (2) there are no
"authorised" non-Panasonic battery manufacturers (funny that), (3) a
3rd party battery for the DMC-TZ7 can be obtained for �8 (possibly
lower; I haven't researched the minimum price) but a genuine Panasonic
battery costs a hefty �50. I simply don't believe that the majority of
this difference represents a necessary cost incurred for making it
"safe". Some of the 3rd party brands are fairly reputable big name
brands such as Uniross and Energizer, and I just think it's incredibly
unlikely that their batteries are at significant risk of catching fire
in my pocket. In any case (4) why couldn't they just put up a
click-through "You are using a 3rd party battery which might cause
irreparable damage to your love-life. Continue (Y/N)?" to give the
user the option?
I'd say it represents about an extra �100 on the price of a camera for
an average user, given that you might want a spare battery, and after
a while one battery might need to be replaced. But it's not just the
money: in the future Panasonic might go bust, decide not to make those
batteries any more, or just put up their battery prices a lot, and
then you might end up with a non-usable camera.
(I'm not evangelical about this, by the way. I'd say it is mildly
inconvenient and would tend to put me off buying their cameras unless
they had made something really amazing.)
Alex Selby
>
> (I'm not evangelical about this, by the way. I'd say it is mildly
> inconvenient and would tend to put me off buying their cameras unless
> they had made something really amazing.)
Excuse me for replying to myself, but thinking about it, I am a bit more
annoyed about it than I implied above because it's this kind of price
distortion (undercharging for product, overcharging for consumables)
that encourages waste. (Artificially high incentive to throw away and
start again.)
Roland Perry
20:16:36 on Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>I've got a (relatively cheap) Saisho microwave that I bought from
>Dixons (as was) over ten years ago
That's Dixons' own brand. Do you happen to know who actually made it?
(Based on Dixons' business model, their own brand products were usually
better value because it cuts out the middle-man who is also handling a
range of products; these items were surgically specced to fit very
targeted points in the market, and made to order in large batches.)
--
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> "Fevric J. Glandules" <f...@invalid.invalid> considered Fri, 27 Nov
> Apart from the carefully engineered in failure to encourage repeat
> sales.
Has anybody found how this is done?
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <vdc0h51r4qgjf0io0...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>20:16:36 on Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>I've got a (relatively cheap) Saisho microwave that I bought from
>>Dixons (as was) over ten years ago
>
>That's Dixons' own brand. Do you happen to know who actually made it?
Dunno. Unless it says on the back somewhere (and I'll take a look
later), I don't know how I'd find out.
>(Based on Dixons' business model, their own brand products were usually
>better value because it cuts out the middle-man who is also handling a
>range of products; these items were surgically specced to fit very
>targeted points in the market, and made to order in large batches.)
That is often the case; provided you don't need something at the top
end of the market and you don't care about the cachet associated with
brand names then own-brand stuff is usually better quality that the
equivalently priced branded goods. I've got a cheap Technika DVD
player, for example, which is Tesco's own brand (although actually
manufacturered by Hitachi) and it's better than the branded one I
bought from Richer Sounds a few years ago.
Roland Perry
09:10:03 on Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>That's Dixons' own brand. Do you happen to know who actually made it?
>
>Dunno. Unless it says on the back somewhere (and I'll take a look
>later), I don't know how I'd find out.
The country of manufacture would be a start.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Green
> It doesn't apply to all models, and it looks like something they might
> be bringing in for new ones, so you might be safe. The trick is they
> claim that "unauthorised" batteries can be a "safety hazard", so
> they've gone the way of printer ink manufacturers and somehow chipped
If they aren't allowing "authorised" batteries other than their own,
surely that's legally somewhat dodgy?
Roland Perry
00:20:17 on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> remarked:
>> It doesn't apply to all models, and it looks like something they might
>> be bringing in for new ones, so you might be safe. The trick is they
>> claim that "unauthorised" batteries can be a "safety hazard", so
>> they've gone the way of printer ink manufacturers and somehow chipped
>> their batteries.[...]
>
>If they aren't allowing "authorised" batteries other than their own,
>surely that's legally somewhat dodgy?
Doesn't this also famously apply to [some] inkjet printers?
And I know that my [Samsung badged as a Dell] laptop needs some kind of
chip in the battery, because one 3rd party replacement battery gave a
message saying it was "unrecognised". The other two unbranded
replacement batteries I've bought work fine.
--
Roland Perry
Alex Selby
> Alex Selby wrote:
>> It doesn't apply to all models, and it looks like something they might
>> be bringing in for new ones, so you might be safe. The trick is they
>> claim that "unauthorised" batteries can be a "safety hazard", so
>> they've gone the way of printer ink manufacturers and somehow chipped
>> their batteries.[...]
>
> If they aren't allowing "authorised" batteries other than their own,
> surely that's legally somewhat dodgy?
>
> Jon
I wouldn't know about the legality, but there is no doubt about which
batteries are allowed. From their own official notice (
http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/TZ7_ZS3/index.html):
"Currently there is no authorised 3rd party battery available in the
market."
Fevric J. Glandules
> I wouldn't know about the legality, but there is no doubt about which
> batteries are allowed. From their own official notice (
> http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/TZ7_ZS3/index.html):
>
> "Currently there is no authorised 3rd party battery available in the
> market."
Which is, to be fair, in red, as well as
[ Warning ]
For our customers safety, after this firmware update your Panasonic
Digital Camera cannot be operated by unauthorised 3rd party batteries.
Modern batteries have very high energy densities and (AIUI) low internal
resistance. These desirable properties also make them really quite
dangerous. I'm no fan of big business bait-and-gouge tactics but in a
litigation-happy world this may be an entirely sensible move on the part
of Panasonic.
FWIW I own a Panasonic point-and-fumble [1] and I've not for a moment
regretted my choice of purchase - although, harking back to earlier
posts in this thread, I did do extensive research beforehand.
So I may biased. But I've not yet felt the need to purchase another
battery, after two and a half years.
[1] With a Leica lens. Which is nice [2].
[2] I mean owning a Leica lens is nice, it might be shite for all I know.
Roland Perry
Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>Modern batteries have very high energy densities and (AIUI) low internal
>resistance. These desirable properties also make them really quite
>dangerous. I'm no fan of big business bait-and-gouge tactics but in a
>litigation-happy world this may be an entirely sensible move on the part
>of Panasonic.
That would be fine, as long as the Panasonic batteries were priced at no
more than 150% of the equivalent 3rd party battery (or even priced no
more than similar "original" batteries from other blue-chip
manufacturers such as Sony). But didn't someone say that wasn't the
case?
--
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood
wrote:
Sony also chip their batterys.
Roland Perry
Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Modern batteries have very high energy densities and (AIUI) low internal
>>> resistance. These desirable properties also make them really quite
>>> dangerous. I'm no fan of big business bait-and-gouge tactics but in a
>>> litigation-happy world this may be an entirely sensible move on the part
>>> of Panasonic.
>>
>> That would be fine, as long as the Panasonic batteries were priced at
>>no more than 150% of the equivalent 3rd party battery (or even
>>priced no more than similar "original" batteries from other
>>blue-chip manufacturers such as Sony). But didn't someone say that
>>wasn't the case?
>
>Sony also chip their batterys.
It seems that only some of the cameras require the chip. I wonder how
one can tell in advance?
The "genuine" Sony camera battery for my Cybershot is only �20 though,
so my remarks above about pegging the Panasonic price to that, still
stand.
--
Roland Perry