On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
That was written in the last 1800s.
It doesn't matter - the principles still apply and always will do.
We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today.
No he isn't. You could have made the same argument with respect to
the changes in cloth production brought about by the industrial
revolution.
It is at times
cheaper to buy lower to mid range mass produced products, that are
expendable. Domestic fridges come to mind. If a compressor goes it is not
worth replacing the compressor, as it would cost more than a new fridge. A
new fridge can come with a 2 or 3 years guarantee too. You can pay silly
money for a fridge and have the compressor replaced when duff, but is it
worth it? Is it cost effective? Usually not.
In effect, one of the quotations describes the total cost of ownership
in that one has to reserve money to deal with problems that could have
been put to buying a better product in the first place.
By buying a better quality and more expensive product, you are in a
better position in consumer law. The guarantees offered are merely a
convenience and do not replace it.
The same applies to washing machines. Condensing tumble dryers have to be
decent quality as the seals have to prevent moisture from entering the room.
About the only case I can see of buying top range white goods.
I can understand that you wouldn't see the reason for buying top of
the range white goods.
I've bought top of the range products such as Miele and Liebherr for
the last 20 years and it certainly pays off. The quality,
usability and performance is better to begin with and absence of
having to screw around with repairs and replacements is worth a great
deal.
In other goods it is worth going for the highest quality, but it not always
the case that paying more means better or it being cost effective.
It usually does, and if there is a problem, one has a great deal of
leverage to get a resolution
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|