Just Another Theremin Fan wrote:
It is quite understandable to not want to keep stocks of
equipment that is out of warrenty.

The profits from replacements parts do not justify keeping
them in stock.

Imagine if a run of 200,000 32 Inch TVs is made. Do your really
think that any manufacturer wants to (or can afford to) keep
200,000 spare LOPTs in stock or 200,000 spare power switches ;-)
or 200,000 spare CRTs??

Most equipment is out of date after 3 years and the cost
simply cannot be justified.

JVC have this down to a fine art.


Why would you suggest that a manufacturer keep a one to one parts
inventory for every set that went out the factory door? That suggests
that *every* part on *every set will fail and need to be replaced. No
one is asking for that, (although it's reasonable to expect a company
which had a known weakness in a product to stock the parts needed to fix
it).

Spare parts should not be considered a profit center. If the product is
reliable, only a minimum of spares should be needed. If needed, they
should be available, along with details on how they should be employed.

The reasons that this is not done are that devices are cheaper to
produce is serviceability is not taken into account; and the company
makes more money on a replacement *device* than replacement *parts*.
Related to this is the rapidity with which devices become obsolete or
superseded by devices with increased capability.

It's up to the consumer to vote with their dollars for higher quality,
able-to-be-serviced (and upgraded) goods.

For the most part so far, they've voted for 'cheap'.

jak