Originally posted by ThorSanchez I think manufactures, en masse, have decided that they make more money with unrepairable units that force upgrades than they would by trying to exploit the market for repairable units.
And I think manufacturers realize customer satisfaction is part of that equation.
Another Apple decision from 93, there is more customer satisfaction if you push them onto a new unit rather than an upgrade or a repair. I know in the minds of the brainwashed, Apple is nefarious and everything they do is evil. Try and see beyond that, don't get distracted and blow gasket a trashing Apple, (Apple's just the example I know about) look at the concept.
It blows me away that after all the success of Apple, there are still people who don't realize Apple has done what their customers wanted them to do. And they've done the market research to know what that is. No one buys Apple just because they are Apple. If the product and philosophy didn't suit their customers they'd be bankrupt, like Atari, Commodore and many other manufacturers of the day. If they can make more money doing that, that's not the issue. Of course you make more money if you pay close attention to those customer satisfaction reports.
Not an Apple customer... no problem, it's not about you. You don't get a say. Apple sells to those who agree with their philosophy and practices and makes good money doing it, despite all the horrible opinions directed their way.'
As far as making money... there used to be warehouses full of returned under warranty Apple product before reliability caught up with the philosophy. IN the days Apple just trashed them. There was no attempt at on board (or any repairs) or refurbs...instead of the alleged money grab it cost them a pile. They could have just resold (or returned to the customer) a repaired unit that statistically would have been less reliable than a unit that never had a problem.The line form the Apple execs internally at that time was "If it lasts 6 months it should last 10 years (and everyone of my Apple computers has lasted more than 10 years." Again, something they knew because they actually had marketing research on these things. Eventually they got the manufacturing tightened up and it became profitable. It wasn't that way through the 90s.
The right to repair isn't desired by everyone. A lot of folks will pay extra, for quality product that is obsolete by the time it needs repair or upgrade.
It's amazing how much nefarious intent is attributed to Apple, who were probably the best at reliability research, market research, and gathering and interpreting the numbers, popular or not. It's the old science vs. what I believe to be true dichotomy. Remarkable numbers of people are willing to believe anything but the truth.
To me the "right to repair" guys are just trying to drag the whole world down to their pathetic level. Personally, I don't want to repair. I'd rather have quality product that doesn't need a lot of repair. I'll pay extra to avoid the loss of time money and use of product in the whole repair process. It's pay now or pay later decision. Pay for quality product now, or pay for repair later. The fact that most of the world has gone for the cheapest possible purchase price then pay to repair model doesn't mean all of us should be forced to go that way.
Last edited by normhead; 12-11-2020 at 10:04 AM.