"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...

It is NOT a conspiracy - it is the result of accountants over-ruling
engineers. The demand is to lower costs, at any cost. The engineers
then have to decide where to cut costs.


The engineers are TOLD by the MBA accountants where to cut costs.

Good designs are allowed to turn to bad designs to cut a fraction of a
penny.

The sooner the product dies after warranty, the sooner the customer
will be buying another NEW item.

From their competitor? What manufacturer wants to take that chance?


As has been pointed out, the repair inventory is considered a "profit
center" which is code for gouge the customer if he wants to repair the
item.

If you have to stock, for thirty years, a part that exists only on a
small handful of machines out there, how much would that part _really_ cost
after overhead for that _entire_ period gets figured in? And since machines
change design every few years, there are simply thousands and thousands of
parts all in the same situation. It's for that reason I quit bitching about
the prices of replacement parts at car dealers. I may pay more, but I'm
assured that it will be there more so than any other source. That assurance
costs money.


And yes it IS a conspiracy....to get more of the public's money.

I'm calling you out on that one. Perhaps if all the brands and
manufacturers of appliances were consolidated so much that they _had_ to be
in cahoots, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but your appliances are
built all over the world now, by a variety of companies competing hard for
your business, not just once, but again and again, and that means that one
company with a good product will never say a word to a competitor about how
they do a better job. I certainly wouldn't, and the way to make money in
appliances is to build a better product that gives the customer the value
for the dollar they are willing to pay. Folks that want a top of the line
appliance will pay extra for the appearance of better quality, and if it can
be proved they're getting their money's worth, they'll spend even more.
What it costs me when a product fails, wastes my time, and the hassle and
frustration of resolving the situation, means far more to me than the
initial cost of a product. I've paid that price too many times, as I'm sure
we all have at one time or another, so back to the point of the most bang
for my buck is why companies competing for my precious dollar will not
conspire with each other. All it takes is for one of them to refuse to
conspire and the conspirators lose, leaving that one to earn my money.


TMT