 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Extended warranties are worthless, nearly
A study in the U.S. (was on news radio) found that the vast majority of problems happen within the first year. So, as always, the advise is NOT to pay for an extended warranty. -Rich > A study in the U.S. (was on news radio) > found that the vast majority of problems happen > within the first year. So, as always, the advise is NOT > to pay for an extended warranty. Once again, Rich states things which have been known for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_warranty (et al) About the only thing worthy of an "extended warranty" are many makes of car made by American companies, and perhaps whatever it was that created what passes for a brain for Rich. But this too has been known for years. Rich, I beg to differ. You are generally right about extended warranties. However, beware of generalisations. In the case of digital cameras, I personally found out over the years (my fourth now - a Canon Rebel XT) that such a warranty is worth it. My last camera quit on me a few days before the warranty expired. I was on vacation then. I was lucky that Canon accepted to repair it under warranty. The previous one gave me a problem almost 2 years after I bought it. I take care of my cameras. Everyone who knows me will attest to this. But as they say: "sh.t happens". So this time around, I took an extended warranty. I hope, as I do for life insurance, that the "warranty" will have been taken for nothing. That's what insurance is all about.Cheers, Marcel >Rich, >I beg to differ. You are generally right about extended warranties. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >all about.Cheers, >Marcel Agreed that extended warranties are generally wasted money. The exception IMO, is a laptop computer used for important stuff, ie making money or working to drop-dead deadlines, and then, only with a manufacturer's warranty. The store warranty is crap. It's easy to say "I'll buy a new machine when this one dies" but the time and expense of picking a new laptop, buying it, and reinstalling all the software and data is not something you want to in year 2 or year 3 if you don't have to. Then there's the accessories you've bought. After two years you can't expect to buy an identical model. A manufacturer's warranty will garantee identical replacement.  Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. > It's easy to say "I'll buy a new machine when this one dies" but the > time and expense of picking a new laptop, buying it, and reinstalling > all the software and data is not something you want to in year 2 or > year 3 if you don't have to. Then there's the accessories you've > bought. After two years you can't expect to buy an identical model. A > manufacturer's warranty will garantee identical replacement. What the hell?! Even if you did receive an identical copy, you still have to "reinstall all the software and data", so what have you saved by purchasing a worthless piece of paper? Even worse, your precondition of working to "drop dead deadlines" pretty well demands that you be prepared to "reinstall all the software and data" at a moments notice, because a moment is about all you are going to get. How is this mighty EW going to help? It seems to me that the money spent on the EW would be better spent on redundancy, backup/restoration software, and other matters directly relevant to the problem. > Even if you did receive an identical copy, you still >have to "reinstall all the software and data", so what have you saved >by purchasing a worthless piece of paper? The most glaringly obvious thing you've saved is the purchase price of the new laptop. > > Even if you did receive an identical copy, you still > >have to "reinstall all the software and data", so what have you saved > >by purchasing a worthless piece of paper? > > The most glaringly obvious thing you've saved is the purchase price > of the new laptop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette "In 2004, Ashley Revell of London sold all of his possessions, clothing included, and brought US$135,300 to the Plaza Hotel in Las Vegas and put it all on "Red" at the roulette table in a double-or-nothing bet. The ball landed on "Red 7" and Revell walked away with his net-worth doubled to $270,600." So, Mr. cimawr, when are you heading over to the Plaza Hotel with your life savings? > So, Mr. cimawr, when are you heading over to the Plaza Hotel with your > life savings? I'm not a "Mr". Jump to conclusions much? And what you posted is utterly irrelevant to the subject of extended mfrs. warranties - or any extended warranty - on laptop computers. I'm guessing that you don't actually make your living in a way that requires use of a laptop computer in the field. I've had repeated first-hand experience of extended warranties being VERY much worth having. Most recent experience was two weeks ago - my construction manager's laptop had a physical hard drive failure. Her laptop is long out of original warranty, but one phone call to Dell had a replacement hard drive on its way to us by overnight shipping. Since critical files are backed up to our server, she was up and running again in just over 24 hours from the time the HD went up. All she lost was some personal photographs that she hadn't backed up. When you're dealing with government contracts that range from hundreds of thousands to well in the millions, and have to do with the safety of the public, that sort of speed in getting up and running again is critical. The money-losing gamble would be NOT having an extended warranty on the computers. > > So, Mr. cimawr, when are you heading over to the Plaza Hotel with your > > life savings? > > I'm not a "Mr". Jump to conclusions much? 95-99% of all technical USENET group participants areas are male (the ratio equalizes in some of the softer areas). The ones who claim they are female are almost always pretenders. This is common knowledge. In your case, you offer no hint prior to your claim, and now post-claim, offer nothing to back up it up. Bayesian inference then takes hold. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but thats a matter for you to (somehow) demonstrate. Good luck! > And what you posted is utterly irrelevant to the subject of extended mfrs. > warranties - or any extended warranty - on laptop computers. A guy complains that he needs an EW because he doesn't want to "reinstall software and data". I note the non sequitur. Someone (you?) then starts saying that it is possible the EW can save money. I say: anyone can win a bet. Does this mean you should go to a casino? You miss the point, and now here we are. > I'm guessing that you don't actually make your living in a way that > requires use of a laptop computer in the field. I've had repeated first-hand > experience of extended warranties being VERY much worth having. You remember the failures and forget the successes. Almost all EW's have a _negative_ expected value. You can google up references galore, I can offer testimony, etc. Heck, our little rpds mascot Rich even heard it on the radio. What more proof do you need? > Most recent experience was two weeks ago - my construction manager's > laptop had a physical hard drive failure. Her laptop is long out of original [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > HD went up. All she lost was some personal photographs that she hadn't > backed up. Didn't I mention this in my initial response? Anyways, I see nothing about EW's anywhere in your little story. What relevance did they have? > When you're dealing with government contracts that range from hundreds of > thousands to well in the millions, and have to do with the safety of the > public, that sort of speed in getting up and running again is critical. How is the EW helping here? Does the EW make things run faster? Does it lubricate the wheels at UPS or FedEx? Or what? > The money-losing gamble would be NOT having an extended warranty on the > computers. Laptop disk drives are fungible. If one fails, you don't have a replacement shipped "over night" from Bangalore or whereever the hell Dell is based, you go to a local store and buy one (30 minutes) -- or, in the case of a someone managing a large population of them, the sysadmin reachs up and takes a replacement from a shelf and plugs it in. Whoo whoo. Note how none of this has anything to do with an EW. Indeed, one would think an EW would slow this down (phone calls, claims, forms to be filled in, overnight shipping, etc), putting the safety of the public and your million dollar contracts at risk. > The ones who claim they > are female are almost always pretenders. This is common knowledge. Uh-huh. Suuuure. Right. Funny that it's the first time I've heard this, having been on USENET for about 10 years... In > your case, you offer no hint prior to your claim, and now post-claim, > offer nothing to back up it up. Y'know, this is one of the silliest statements I've ever seen on USENET - and I spend a lot of time in the dog NGs, which are infested by a literal maniac. It's not a "claim", it's a fact, and there's absolutely no reason I should have to "offer something to back it up". It's also completely irrelevant, aside from it being amusing when somebody jumps to a conclusion. If you want to waste your time worrying about my gender, go google for posts I've made on rec.pets.dogs.behavior and r.p.d.breeds. I'm sure if you hunt back a ways, you can track one down where I've posted links to the Yahoo photo pages where I've post pictures of my dogs in competition, some of which also have me in them. Some of my posts are under "Sionnach", some are under "Cimawr", some are signed with my real first name. > A guy complains that he needs an EW because he doesn't want to > "reinstall software and data". You've conveniently snipped out the beginning of the sentence, which started with a reference to the time and expense of *replacing the laptop*. Reinstalling the software is secondary. > You remember the failures and forget the successes. Almost all EW's > have a _negative_ expected value. You're deliberately missing the point, which is that when laptops are mission-critical, it's worth having insurance on them - which is what EWs are. > Anyways, I see nothing > about EW's anywhere in your little story. What relevance did they > have? If you saw nothing about EW's in the story, I'm afraid you're rather lacking in reading comprehension skills. When someone says "I have experience with EW's being worth it, here's an example", it's not necessary to then spell out in the example itself that repair was effected under the EW. However, I DID spell it out in the example; which part of "the laptop was long out of original warranty" did you fail to understand? > Laptop disk drives are fungible. If one fails, you don't have a > replacement shipped "over night" from Bangalore or whereever the hell > Dell is based, you go to a local store and buy one (30 minutes) No, you don't. You can do that with desktops, but not with laptops. > Indeed, one would > think an EW would slow this down (phone calls, claims, forms to be > filled in, overnight shipping, etc) No claims, no forms to be filled in. One 10-minute phone call, one HD the next morning, one laptop back on the road. In any case, there's not much point in continuing this, because you're clearly not interested in actually having a discussion. > > The ones who claim they > > are female are almost always pretenders. This is common knowledge. > > Uh-huh. Suuuure. Right. Funny that it's the first time I've heard this, > having been on USENET for about 10 years... Then you'd have heard about not feeding trolls ... :) (It makes them obese, and raises their cholesterol levels!) > Then you'd have heard about not feeding trolls ... :) > > (It makes them obese, and raises their cholesterol levels!) And that would kill them off sooner. Sounds like a good reason to feed them. <g> > > Then you'd have heard about not feeding trolls ... :) > > > > (It makes them obese, and raises their cholesterol levels!) > > And that would kill them off sooner. Sounds like a good reason to feed > them. <g> Sigh, "if only it were true" :( > > The ones who claim they > > are female are almost always pretenders. This is common knowledge. > > Uh-huh. Suuuure. Right. Funny that it's the first time I've heard this, > having been on USENET for about 10 years... Don't strip essential context from my remarks, or you sound more foolish than you may be. > In > > your case, you offer no hint prior to your claim, and now post-claim, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and I spend a lot of time in the dog NGs, which are infested by a literal > maniac. There is no hint at all of your sex, someone uses the male honourific, and you get all upset, now claiming to be female. This is classic "I'm losing this argument, let's do the distraction show" idiocy. Are all females like this, or are you just the typical dumbass male? (www.google.com: false dichotomy). > It's not a "claim", it's a fact, and there's absolutely no reason I should > have to "offer something to back it up". It's also completely irrelevant, > aside from it being amusing when somebody jumps to a conclusion. The bayesian prior is extreme in _technical_ newsgroups (remember that qualifier? you probably don't, since you deleted it) to male posters. If a 99% certain win is to be achieved by making such and such a bet, do you flip a coin, or go with prior knowledge? And thanks for admitting your gender, whatever it may be, is completely irrelevant. > Some of my posts are under "Sionnach", some are under "Cimawr", some are > signed with my real first name. Oh, I'm supposed to magically know that "Cimawr" == "Sinonnach" == some unknown name are sock puppets of the same entity? That you prefer to act like a nitwit doesn't mean I have to... > > A guy complains that he needs an EW because he doesn't want to > > "reinstall software and data". > > You've conveniently snipped out the beginning of the sentence, which > started with a reference to the time and expense of *replacing the laptop*. > Reinstalling the software is secondary. Here is Mr. Dykes comment for your edification: It's easy to say "I'll buy a new machine when this one dies" but the time and expense of picking a new laptop, buying it, and reinstalling all the software and data is not something you want to in year 2 or year 3 if you don't have to. Doesn't look he said "reinstallation is secondary" to me. Maybe you have a different dictionary? It should also be noted, though (and I did), that as soon as you have a replacement laptop (by whatever means), recovery is indeed a trivial matter. Hence the "non sequitur": it simply doesn't matter _where_ the replacement comes from. > > You remember the failures and forget the successes. Almost all EW's > > have a _negative_ expected value. > > You're deliberately missing the point, which is that when laptops are > mission-critical, it's worth having insurance on them - which is what EWs > are. Listen, idiot, look up what "expected value" means and maybe you'll start making sense. The definition is _highly relevant_ to the operational meaning of "mission critical". > > Anyways, I see nothing > > about EW's anywhere in your little story. What relevance did they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > However, I DID spell it out in the example; which part of "the laptop was > long out of original warranty" did you fail to understand? And as I told you that anyone can win a bet. Are you going to the casino right now then? > > Laptop disk drives are fungible. If one fails, you don't have a > > replacement shipped "over night" from Bangalore or whereever the hell > > Dell is based, you go to a local store and buy one (30 minutes) > > No, you don't. You can do that with desktops, but not with laptops. You are ignorant. I've replaced the drive in my laptop, and have watched as others have done the same with theirs. Out with the old, in with the new. Laptop drives are a commodity item; I can have a new one in my hands within 30 minutes -- and 20 of those would be walking time. > > Indeed, one would > > think an EW would slow this down (phone calls, claims, forms to be > > filled in, overnight shipping, etc) > > No claims, no forms to be filled in. One 10-minute phone call, one HD the > next morning, one laptop back on the road. HA HA HA. Compared to having the "laptop back on the road" within an hour or two. Somehow, it no longer surprises me that you are involved with government work... > In any case, there's not much point in continuing this, because you're > clearly not interested in actually having a discussion. If you don't like losing arguments, don't make them, nitwit. > 95-99% of all technical USENET group participants areas are male (the > ratio equalizes in some of the softer areas). The ones who claim > they are female are almost always pretenders. This is common > knowledge. Citation, please? > In your case, you offer no hint prior to your claim, and now > post-claim, offer nothing to back up it up. Bayesian inference then > takes hold. Like with your claim that about female pretenders. > If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but thats a matter for you to (somehow) > demonstrate. Good luck! No, it's up to you to demonstrate that you're right. Good luck! > > 95-99% of all technical USENET group participants areas are male (the > > ratio equalizes in some of the softer areas). The ones who claim > > they are female are almost always pretenders. This is common > > knowledge. > > Citation, please? groups.google.com; go ahead, and prowl around in the technical newsgroups, looking at the names or other clues. It may be nice if there were more female participation, but reality is what it is. > groups.google.com; go ahead, and prowl around in the technical > newsgroups, looking at the names or other clues. It may be nice if > there were more female participation, but reality is what it is. You're quite deliberately ducking the question - normal troll behaviour, of course. What you are being asked to give citations for is not the male-to-female ratio in technical NGs (which this is not a technical group, btw), but your nonsensical claim that those who say they are female or use female names are actually men pretending to be women. > > groups.google.com; go ahead, and prowl around in the technical > > newsgroups, looking at the names or other clues. It may be nice if > > there were more female participation, but reality is what it is. > > You're quite deliberately ducking the question - normal troll behaviour, > of course. Aren't you the dimbulb who believes that you can't change the disk in a laptop? > What you are being asked to give citations for is not the male-to-female > ratio in technical NGs (which this is not a technical group, btw), Of course it isn't. No technical matters are ever discussed here. Not once. Not even a few times. Why, the non-technical content of this group may be less than 90%! Clearly we have a "soft group" here that is populated almost equally by males and females, and everyone speaks the truth about their gender identity! > but your > nonsensical claim that those who say they are female or use female names are > actually men pretending to be women. You need to read my claim, as well as the demand for a "citation" once again. Seek help with the longer words or more difficult concepts: at least _try_ and make some sense. Anyways, a few moments at google can dredge up more than a bit about males pretending to be females while online. Anyone who has been online for, as you claim, 10 years, would not need to do this though: you must have experienced or noticed the effect a long, long, time ago and many times since. The reasons why are easy to discern: attention is probably the biggest desire. An example from the multi-player gaming area: http://www.well.com/user/hlr/vcbook/vcbook5.html "It appears that the great majority of players are male and the vast majority of them choose to present themselves as such. Some males, however, taking advantages of the relative rarity of females in MUDs, present themselves as female and thus stand out to some degree. Some use this distinction just for the fun of deceiving others, some of these going so far as to try to entice male-presenting players into sexually-explicit discussions and interactions. This is such a widely-noticed phenomenon, in fact, that one is advised by the common wisdom to assume that any flirtatious female-presenting players are, in real life, males. Such players are often subject to ostracism based on this assumption." Flirting is hardly required though. And MUD's are not much different from USENET for the purposes under discussion, with the possible exception that they likely have a slightly more even male to female ratio. Just a smidge more slightly. >Aren't you the dimbulb who believes that you can't change the disk in a >laptop? Since I posted about replacing the disk in my construction manager's laptop, the answer to that is rather obvious. It's also completely irrelevant to your silly claim about female impersonators on USENET - which, speaking of obvious, you obviously have no actual data to back up. Hint: a quote about MUDS, from a book written 13 years ago, is not relevant to a discussion about current-day USENET. > >Aren't you the dimbulb who believes that you can't change the disk in a > >laptop? > > Since I posted about replacing the disk in my construction manager's > laptop, the answer to that is rather obvious. Here is what I said: >> Laptop disk drives are fungible. If one fails, you don't have a >> replacement shipped "over night" from Bangalore or whereever the hell >> Dell is based, you go to a local store and buy one (30 minutes) And here is your response: > No, you don't. You can do that with desktops, but not with laptops. Never lie on USENET, liar. >Of course it isn't. No technical matters are ever discussed here. Not >once. The fact that technical matters about photography are discussed here does not make this a "technical group". We frequently discuss technical details of dog training on the dog groups (for example, comparing the advantages and disadvantages of a 2/2 contact on the A-frame vs. a 1RTO vs a running) , but that does not make them "technical groups", either. cimawr makes more up as it goes along: > >Of course it isn't. No technical matters are ever discussed here. Not > >once. > > The fact that technical matters about photography are discussed here > does not make this a "technical group". Fortunately, the rest of the world does not read the dictionary that you are writing as you type. >> Even if you did receive an identical copy, you still >>have to "reinstall all the software and data", so what have you saved >>by purchasing a worthless piece of paper? > > The most glaringly obvious thing you've saved is the purchase price >of the new laptop. And the 5 minutes it takes to swap the hard disk to the new machine. (99% of the time the hard disk is OK). If you have a decent backup strategy then you can restore to a new disk in a few minutes and go. A manufacturer's warranty promises to give you an identical machine and if you need, they can give you a contract that promises 4 hour or next-day on-site service for some more bucks. The third-party warranties I've seen promise you a "compatible" unit if the model you have is out of production. That's crap. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. > Agreed that extended warranties are generally wasted money. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bought. After two years you can't expect to buy an identical model. A > manufacturer's warranty will garantee identical replacement. I don't buy desktop warranties but i do buy laptop ones. I build my own desktops and many parts come with 3 or 5 years warranty. They seem to be skimping on harddisk warranties these days though. > I beg to differ. You are generally right about extended warranties. > However, beware of generalisations. Generalizations -- patterns -- are what make you human. > In the case of digital cameras, I personally found out over the years > (my fourth now - a Canon Rebel XT) that such a warranty is worth it. I have a very large "investment" in cameras. To date, I've made exactly one (1) warranty claim, and it was made under the normal manufacturer warranty. I've had two other repairs made. One Canon did gratis, and another cost me $150 CDN. How much would I have spent over the years on "extended warranties" for my collection of 3 cameras, 6 lenses, 2 teleconverters, and two pairs of binoculars? Doubtless a hell of a lot more. > My last camera quit on me a few days before the warranty expired. I was on > vacation then. I was lucky that Canon accepted to repair it under > warranty. f.ck, most anyone will make the repair under warranty in this situation. "Luck" has zip to do with it: basic customer service and reputation maintenance is what is happening. > The previous one gave me a problem almost 2 years after I > bought it. I take care of my cameras. Everyone who knows me will attest > to this. But as they say: "sh.t happens". So this time around, I took > an extended warranty. I hope, as I do for life insurance, that the > "warranty" will have been taken for nothing. That's what insurance is > all about. When people tell you that "extended warranties are a waste of money", they are telling you that, in the end, the expected value(*) of the EW is _LESS_ than the amount you pay for it. Or, equivalently, those who buy them are fools: absolutely no different from "investing" the money in a casino with a wickedly high house advantage. But at least in a casino, you get some weird kind of entertainment. Maybe even some "comps". (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value I think it depends on who is issuing the warranty. If it's issued by a third party, not the manufacturer, odds are the issuer won't be around to honor it when due. Recognize that the extended warranty IS an additional source of profit for the manufacturer - i.e. they wouldn't sell it if they didn't expect to pay out less than they receive. In the case of digital cameras,Mack warranties are sold everywhere,and are totaly worthless.I know of dozens of cases where they refused to honor the warranties.I can only remember 1 case where they honored it for a small repair. >I think it depends on who is issuing the warranty. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for the manufacturer - i.e. they wouldn't sell it if they didn't expect > to pay out less than they receive. > Recognize that the extended warranty IS an additional source of profit > for the manufacturer - i.e. they wouldn't sell it if they didn't expect > to pay out less than they receive. They may calculate to make loss on the warranty, but reap overall winnings through increased sales of the camera due to their long warranty period. -Wolfgang >> Recognize that the extended warranty IS an additional source of profit >> for the manufacturer - i.e. they wouldn't sell it if they didn't expect [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -Wolfgang I bought from a company just because they offer 18months instead of 12. Its european law that warranties are for 2 years now. There are also 'fit for its purpose' laws. Guy got his washing machine repaired after a year cos the judge agreed if you pay £500 for a washing machine you expect it to work for more than 1 year. Had to have two repairs on laptop. 2nd one was to repair a new fault caused by the first repair. Won't be buying compaq/hp again. Should have built it properly in the first place. I must admit that i bought the jessops warranty for my camera cos its new for old. As there may not be replacement 300D around i should get a 350D instead. Also accidental damage insurance was included. The whole cover was same price as canons own warranty of merely extended warranty. > > Recognize that the extended warranty IS an additional source of profit > > for the manufacturer - i.e. they wouldn't sell it if they didn't expect [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > winnings through increased sales of the camera due to their long > warranty period. Additionally, if a repair is required under warranty it costs the manufacturer a lot less to perform it than it would cost you if you had to pay the same manufacturer to do it for you. > A study in the U.S. (was on news radio) > found that the vast majority of problems happen > within the first year. So, as always, the advise is NOT > to pay for an extended warranty. Companies offering extended warranties *make a profit* from them, which in the abstract settles the issue. However, if you're buying something you can't afford to carry the risk on, you might be better off with the extended warranty anyway. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > A study in the U.S. (was on news radio) > found that the vast majority of problems happen > within the first year. So, as always, the advise is NOT > to pay for an extended warranty. -Rich Generally you are correct. An extended warranty which merely extends the repair coverage is probably a bad idea, particularly in something that depreciates rapidly.. like last years 3mp camera's. However, if the extended warranty comes with something extra, like priority servicing, or additional services (i.e. Apple ProCare) then it might be worth it and should be evaluated particularly if you can afford to be with out the item. SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo Actually, no warranty is 'free.' The free warranty that comes with the product is just built into the price of the product. Extended warranties are more of the same, though they tend to be even more expensive. In any event, all companies consider warranties to be a profit center, whether you are forced to buy a warranty with the initial purchase or you buy one from a third party and call it an extended warranty. It is probably a little extreme to declare that any warranty is 'worthless.' All warranties probably have some value, but that value may not be worth the price you pay for it whether the warranty is 'normal' or 'extended.' I will generally not pay for an extended warranty, especially for equipment that has fast obsolescense like digital cameras. Most of these extended warranties cost more than the camera will be worth when they go into effect. Plus, a lot of these warranties require considerable time and trouble to make a claim. All a warranty is, it is an insurance policy. You are buying insurance against your camera breaking under normal wear and tear. Well, it could happen. In fact, as the camera ages the probability that it will break approaches 100%, which is one reason why extended warranties are so expensive. OTOH, as the camera ages, the probability that it will be discarded as trash also approaches 100%, so it is ridiculous to price the warranty as if every camera will make a claim. Only a tiny percentage ever do that. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.