It won’t break until...
Posted on
Sometimes technology goes wrong. It's annoying but it happens. And when it does, it can be expensive to repair. With computers, it seems to be standard practice that when you buy a new one, you get a warranty period of one year thrown in—especially if you've paid an arm and a leg for it. But it's then common to have the option to extend that warranty to three years, usually at a very high cost (such as the other arm). Is this justified? I'm not so sure.
A warranty is a bit like insurance, thus instantly making me suspicious of it. Insurance is a way for a company to make money from people's fear of what might happen, but probably won't. A warranty warrants that an item will work as intended for a specified period and that the supplier will repair or replace it if it doesn't. The difference between a warranty and traditional insurance is that some warranties are supplied as standard when you buy an item. The grey area arises for extended warranties, which work in exactly the same way, but require the consumer to pay for them. My gripe is that the initial warranty is rarely long enough and that these extended warranties should either cover much longer periods or not exist at all.
Warranties aren't a bad idea. In fact, they're a very good one. But if a company sells a product, it should be prepared to guarantee that the product and its component parts will last for a reasonable period of time. In my opinion, this should be equivalent to a typical lifetime of that item. For an expensive item like a computer, that's more than a year. A typical computer owner is unlikely to replace their computer within one or even two years with a newer model. I'd expect most people only to consider an upgrade after three years when it is significantly eclipsed by newer releases. I wouldn't, however, expect that computer to stop working within three years. Most would accept that the hardware is more or less obsolete after five years, regardless of whether it is still functioning.
My main desktop computer at home must be approaching five years old. It's still very useable. Granted, it's somewhat out of date and there are much better machines on the market. I just haven't had a need to upgrade it yet, and since there is nothing wrong with it (thus far!), I don't have a desire to. Admittedly I'm something of a dab hand with computers so I know how to look after it, but I don't do anything out of the ordinary. I just don't abuse it.
That any technology company can justify a short initial warrantee period, let alone the extortionate cost of an extended warranty, is baffling. Frankly I'd worry about buying from these companies as they obviously don't have much faith in their own products, but they're all doing it! Used properly, computers shouldn't just stop working after a year... or even after three years. So, why should a consumer need to pay through the nose for an extended warranty for that period?