"Ray L. Volts" ) writes:
"HarryHydro" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Folks:
I was given a JVC GR-SXM320V to 'look at'. I was told it was dropped
a few times and when it failed, the tape got stuck inside. They bought
it to a repair shop, who was able to extract the tape, but didn't fix
the camera. That's how I came upon it. The transport mechanics didn't
move. The screen came up with ERROR 02 or something, and "REMOVE AND
REPLACE THE BATTERY". After poking around with it for a while, seeing
very little voltage on the transport motor, I traced the transport
motor circuitry back to a BA6866KV chip by ROHM. I hunted the internet
for this chip. I got suggestions to try JVC, which didn't help. I found
a repair shop in my area that could get the chip. $68 and change!!!!
Well, I went for broke, took the chance, bought the chip which they got
in a couple of days! I put that in with my pencil iron and stereo
microscope (fun if you know how big this chip is), and now it's
working! Whew. I added a resistor in series with the motor in case it
binds. The owner is happy, but, was it worth $68? Where do youi
suppose they found this chip? I think they added $50 bucks to it. What
a ripoff. This is the first mini-camcorder I worked on but the first
component I had to buy for one. I'll fix no more if parts are going to
be this out-of-site.
Take Care!
Harry


Parts -- especially the increasingly prevalent proprietary ones -- are often
NLA (for non-authorized centers for sure) and/or sky high in price because
manufacturers DO NOT want their old models repaired. They want to move new
products. That's where their profit is; not in ensuring older units keep
working. The industry didn't move to plastic gears and levers JUST to
reduce weight. They're weaker than metal and therefore more prone to wear
and breakage, helping ensure a shorter product lifespan. They probably cost
quite a bit less to manufacture as well, thereby enhancing the company's
bottom line. Your last line is precisely the industry's strategy: to
remove the incentive for repair and enhance the incentive for replacement.
Don't expect this trend to reverse anytime soon.
Of course, shops and customers deal with this on a case-by-case basis.
Sometimes it's substantially less costly to pay for repairs. For example,
$300 to repair a $1200 camera. The vast majority of consumers, however,
don't pump that kind of money into their gadgets, so repair is a
decreasingly attractive option for most. I doubt the vast majority are
willing to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to
environmental (i.e., landfill) friendliness, also.


I think the second reason is more likely, that there is demand for cheaper
products. And once something is cheap, the cost of repair becomes an
increasingly large percentage.

Forty years ago, the average house had very little in the way of electronics,
and they were pretty generic repair wise, the tv set, the radio and the
stereo or record player. Few of the parts were specific to the set, so
the local repairman could deal with them, getting the parts at the local
electronic store, that also catered to the electronic hobbyist since
the parts pretty much overlapped. When the items were bought, they
were a big occasion.

Then solid state and even moreso ICs came along, and lots of things
that were prohibitive (in size, if not in cost) were feasible for
the average consumer, so they started arriving. There are almost
infinitely more electronics around the house today than in 1966, or
even 1976.

And it's always been a trend to cut production costs in order to
lower sales prices, to increase the number of units sold. Indeed,
the current cornucopia of electronic devices in the home is a result
not just of demand but of lower prices. At the very most I'd buy one
of those digital clocks thirty years ago, if I could afford it, but
that LCD clock I bought the other day for $1.99 was too cheap to not
buy.

So far from manufacturers setting out to make equipment that fails
easily, I would argue they cut costs to meet consumer demands. And
then when they do break (and I don't know whether things break more
or less than before, I have little failure and most of the things I
have came to me used; it may even be that things don't break more
often, but the amount of electronic equipment around the house
simply increases the chance that something will break), the cost
of repair has more or less remained the same (compared to income)
but the cost of repair is a far bigger percentage of a new device,
which makes people think twice.

I got my first printer in 1982, for five hundred dollars. Not a very
good one, not very fast, but about as cheap as I could get one here
in Canada that year. If it had needed repairing (and it never did, it
lasted until I gave it away years after I'd moved to a better printer),
the investment of the new printer would mean I'd either have it repaired,
or live without a printer. Now you can get near infinitely better printers
for under a hundred dollars. That cost reduction has to come from somewhere.
Even a decade ago, inkjets would have carried a price that warranted
repair costs. But that decade old inkjet likely is still running, because
better mechanical components could be afforded because of the higher price.
Of course, few want to run those decade old printers because the art has
advanced since then, and they want better.

That's another factor, if things are still on a development curve. If
something better is coming along next year, and at a cheaper price, because
demand feeds development, then that leaves the people who buy early on
at high prices in the dust. If something better (and I do mean significantly
better features or specs, that the buyer actually wants rather) comes
along, why spend so much now? Note that I am not saying the manufacturers
are limiting equipment so they can sell it a second time, I'm saying that
when something arrives they may not see that something better can be
made, or they don't anticipate the demand.

Michael