Sort of. It kind of makes sense in that they don’t want you to lie about having a TV that doesn’t work to get a free second TV. If the issue is small enough that it can easily be ignored, it’s not worth replacing. And if it’s a big enough issue that it’s unusable, it shouldn’t bother you to destroy it.
What sucks is that stuff ends up in the landfill most of the time instead of being recycled.
What sucks is that stuff ends up in the landfill most of the time instead of being recycled.
Yeah that’s the sad part. It’s such a colossal waste.
it shouldn’t bother you to destroy it.
I disagree. I think it should, and probably does, bother everyone involved. Why damage it further, when it could be sold or even just given to a refurb/repair outfit?
I mean I know why, it’s because there’s no immediate profit motive there. Maybe even the opposite. Which again, is sad.
Yes, but shipping it back to be destroyed instead would be more wasteful, with the same end result.
It would be better to repair, but where repairs cost more than replacement, the only way to force them to repair is with regulations, as otherwise they do what costs less.
I much prefer that they require you to break it and give a new one. From a consumer perspective it’s a better outcome. From an environmental perspective, it’s slightly better than ship back and destroy. The ideal is repair which has less waste and solves the problem for the consumer.
I wonder if the cost of shipping a defective item were higher if it would happen so frequently. Polluting on that scale is largely free, even though it costs us all dearly.
Like you said, we don’t have many tools other than regulation
That’s so sad
Sort of. It kind of makes sense in that they don’t want you to lie about having a TV that doesn’t work to get a free second TV. If the issue is small enough that it can easily be ignored, it’s not worth replacing. And if it’s a big enough issue that it’s unusable, it shouldn’t bother you to destroy it.
What sucks is that stuff ends up in the landfill most of the time instead of being recycled.
Yeah that’s the sad part. It’s such a colossal waste.
I disagree. I think it should, and probably does, bother everyone involved. Why damage it further, when it could be sold or even just given to a refurb/repair outfit?
I mean I know why, it’s because there’s no immediate profit motive there. Maybe even the opposite. Which again, is sad.
Yes, but shipping it back to be destroyed instead would be more wasteful, with the same end result.
It would be better to repair, but where repairs cost more than replacement, the only way to force them to repair is with regulations, as otherwise they do what costs less.
I much prefer that they require you to break it and give a new one. From a consumer perspective it’s a better outcome. From an environmental perspective, it’s slightly better than ship back and destroy. The ideal is repair which has less waste and solves the problem for the consumer.
I wonder if the cost of shipping a defective item were higher if it would happen so frequently. Polluting on that scale is largely free, even though it costs us all dearly.
Like you said, we don’t have many tools other than regulation