Talk:Extended warranty/Archives/2013

Please internationalise

this needs internationalising Secretlondon 20:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VfD result

From VfD:

• Unhelpful substub. Delete as a premature entry—but we really should have an article on Warranty! Lupo 14:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• How's it now? I added to it a little. I agree on warranty, though I don't know if a useful article could be created out of it--it might just be a Wiktionary entry. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:46, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

  Hey, not bad! I didn't think it could grow into that... On an aside, I think Warranty could well be worth an entry—there's far more than just dicdef material, just think of all the legal implications and complications. Unfortunately, I can't do it, knowing next to zilch about the subject. Anyway, seems I listed this prematurely. Sorry, folks. Keep now. Lupo 16:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  Hey, np. If you hadn't had listed it, I wouldn't have written it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:39, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Wow. Certainly keep now. Joyous 22:55, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - these are interesting. Secretlondon 20:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep new article and list warranty on Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Kudos to Frecklefoot. Keep indeed. Rossumcapek 13:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Rewrite

The rewrite looks like it was made by Circuit City or CompUSA, those who benefit greatly from EW's. I liked the previous version better, but I'm biased. Most consumer advocate groups claim extended warranties are worthless except for a very few items. The rewrite makes it sound like only a few consumer groups decry them as a waste of money. The rewrite goes onto justify EW's as necessary for retailers to stay in business with Internet retailers cutting into their business. On the whole, it is a very POV rewrite. Compare this version to the current version. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

The statement "However, in most cases, extended warranties are not worth the money," displays bias. The article should be impartial. — Evan Chaney 17:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Our organisation pays out a significant proportion of its earned revenue on its extended warranties. The product is both valuable and viable.

Andrew G Scott (user:AScott)

Also agreed here - I am a Circuit City associate, and our City Advantage Protection Plan is actually well worth the money invested into a laptop. Screen damage typically costs as much as a protection plan and sometimes more when labor is taken into consideration. This article is full of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.69.6 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed some bias

Added the following:

"An extended warranty is coverage for electrical or mechanical breakdown. It does not cover peripheral items, wear and tear, damage by computer viruses, re-gassing, normal maintenance, accidental damage, or any consequential loss. The indemnity is to cover the cost of repair and may include replacement if deemed uneconomic for repair. It is important for consumers to read and understand the terms and conditions offered at the point of sale. The value of extended warranties lies behind the organization promoting and selling them. Most of the major retailers employ specialist administrators to manage the claims and to ensure the product is priced on a sustainable basis. An essential part of this is to determine the appropriate provisions on the balance sheet to reserve for future claims. Similarly, the income must be earned over the period of cover. Companies that have been around for several years will usually have the systems and data in place with which to do this. Less reputable organizations may not adequacy price their extended warranties and may therefore have insufficient funds to provide for future claims costs."

Remove the following: "An extended warranty is pitched like an "insurance policy" in case the product breaks down after the manufacturer’s standard warranty period. It promises more protection. However, in some cases, extended warranties might not be worthwhile.

Extended warranties are something of a cash cow for those who offer them. Few items with extended warranties ever need replacing or repairing and, if they ever do, many consumers forget they purchased the warranty, pass the product to another person without explaining it to them, or do not know how to invoke it: often the customer ends up buying a new replacement product. In addition, the insurer of an extended warranty may claim the product was abused or used in a manner inconsistent with "normal wear". At point of purchase, many consumers pay little attention to the "fine print" of the warranty. Where retailers do honor their extended warranty, the volume of unused or unclaimed extended warranties amply cover the claims.

Consumer advocate groups, such as the non-profit Consumers Union, advise against purchasing extended warranties. David Butler of the Consumers Union says, "The extended warranty is definitely in the best interest of the company, but isn't often in the best interest of the consumer." He adds, "The company is much more likely to profit from the extended warranty than the consumer is." In many cases, if the item does need repairing, the cost of repairs are less than the cost of the extended warranty.

Consumers Union says only two products deserve extended warranty consideration: projection TV's and digital camcorders. Both are expensive to repair and need repairs frequently."

This is clearly biased and offers an uninformed view. --Ascott 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, the Consumers Union is biased and uninformed? Where's the attribution for that? They're one of the largest and most respected consumer advocate groups in the world. Certainly they could be biased, but says who? They don't accept any donations from corporations, so they can't have some "hidden agenda" other than trying to protect consumers.

I happen to wholey agree with every section that was removed. I re-added the paragraph from the Consumers Union since it was removed via someone's opinion that they are "biased and uninformed." — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Company more likely to profit than consumers." Sure, the majority of consumers will not need to make a claim just like the majority of motor vehicles will not have an accident in a year. It is only the minority who have problems. The extended warranty product provides protection to all customers just like any insurance product. In considering the net benefit to consumers, one must therefore compare the total cost to consumers against the total money returned to them. The organisations best placed to do this are the insurance companies behind these products.

From their perspective, the insurance industry continues to have unfavourable experiences with this product and continue to view this product category as a source of losses. Many have now withdrawn from this market segment. In practice, this means that payouts to consumers have been greater than the income collected and therefore the net benefit to consumers has been positive. --Ascott 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this assertion. Strongly disagree. Looking at your userpage, you are based in Australia, no? I can only assume that extended warranties are handled differently there. In the US, the extended warranty is administered by the retailer (e.g. Circuit City, Best Buy). If extended warranties were a loss for retailer, they would stop pushing them. However, I find it almost impossible to buy even a mid-priced electronic item without getting an extended warranty offer shoved down my throat. Really, these retailers really, really want you to buy an extended warranty. Why would they do this if they actually lost money on them? The truth is simple, they don't lose money on them, they are cash cows, just as the Consumer's Union asserts. Why you don't grasp this is beyond me.

Really, I'm probably an average user of electronics. I have never, ever needed to engage an extended warranty. If something stops working, it's usually far past the time an extended warranty would've covered anyway. Occasionally I buy things that don't work out of the box, but these I simply return to the store for working ones—no EW needed.

Now, clearly, this article needs to represent a worldwide view. That being the case, we need to find a way to balance the information in the article so it is accurate for all parts of the world. In the United States, extended warranties are cash cows for the retailers. Really, this is unquestionable. In Australia, things may be different. Either we can divide things into countries, regions or try to balance the text throughout the article (e.g. in the US, blah blah blah. However, in Australia, blah blah blah. Then again in Argentina, blah blah blah.). I vote for the former. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Extended warranty is generally a global product as are the major manufacturers and reinsurers.--Ascott 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should simply provide readers of a clearly defined definition of extended warranties, not whether or not they are worthwhile. That subject is purely based upon opinion. Some people believe in extended warranties, and I can tell you for a fact that Circuit City makes 60% profit on laptop protection plans, but that DOESN'T make them worthless. It can be beneficial to both parties involved. That's how business works, right? This really should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.69.6 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)