ratyoke t1_ja3wuyk wrote on February 26, 2023 at 5:39 PM

I would pay more for a better product that should last longer, but I wouldn't pay it as a yearly fee.

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3x0hx wrote on February 26, 2023 at 5:40 PM

I would prefer that scenario too but they already know there is not enough people in that segment to bring back the old quality. They simply adapted to the changes of the system so we need a new business model to lure them into making it while also giving us a tool to quit the scheme if the promise is not met.

ratyoke t1_ja3xs3j wrote on February 26, 2023 at 5:45 PM

Feels like another subscription and I have too many subscriptions already. I guess it would depend on what the product was and how much the fee was.

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3y77i wrote on February 26, 2023 at 5:47 PM

It's all about the principle. The details can be tweaked until it works for the targeted audience. I imagine it as follows:

Year 2: the laptop is broken

The dealer: it's user damage

Me: Then I don't pay

I lose the product, they lose 50% in potential revenue.

If they want they can fix it and I will continue the payments.

Right now warranties don't give me that. I pay 100% in advance and pray. Eventually everything expensive ends up as "user damage" with no way for me to prove it's not. In the case of lease it's the same thing - even if the device is broken if it's considered user damage I have to continue paying. I understand insurance solves that but it doesn't incentivize the producer to make lasting products and as importantly doesn't give the user control in the process.