"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) formulated the question :
They were often rented, because they were so expensive and because
there would then be a cost free ready repair option, when as they
often
did, they broke down or needed adjustment.

And the rental company supplying a social service, then? ;-)

No different from having a service contract on your heating system.
Long
term, the supplier always wins. And by a large margin.

Of course the supplier wins, they are never charities - they are a
business and need to make a profit.

Back in the day, many companies were set up as a source to rent TV's
and it was a sensible option to rent one.

It was never anymore sensible to rent a TV over anything else.

That’s not right. Renting avoids the high up front cost.

Yes you end up paying more, but you do get the use
of the TV when you would otherwise not have that.

Like say a car.

The difference there is that you can walk, ride a bike,
use public transport etc. With TV the only real alternative
is to stand outside a shop window and watch that TV.

At the end of the day, you pay for the service they provide.

Other thing was the own brand sets many of the rental companies
supplied were hardly state of the art, even in the day. Famously,
the lack of a black level clamp. And a pretty basic cabinet. Bit
like a car maker only offering a basic model.

But that’s no big deal if the alternative is no TV.