I did read the new consumer laws regarding faults outside of warranty period. We are looking at getting the Panasonic TH-P50ST60A . As it only comes with 1 year warranty and is only priced around 1100, what is considered a reasonable life for it? Should we consider extended warranty for it?
Will appreciate Ozbargainer opinions. (and will also welcome any other suggestions for a similar priced TV as well.)
Thanks.
True from my experience as well with Panasonic, they used to (or still) offer extended warranty at a reaonable price, I purchased the 2-3 additional years warranty …Never had to use them
IMO I would expect a $1000 product to last more than 12 months.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NrxxzsaBkC4&desktop_uri=%2Fwat…
If they can extend for an additional 4 years at the cost of $70-$110 then it will very well be worth it . Average lifespan of modern tvs are only getting shorter. Not made with the same old sturdy parts or quality control.
What is it about modern electronics that makes you think that it will fail and burst into flames at the end of 12 months? I don't see any real reason a name-brand TV shouldn't last for 10 years or more. If it is good enough for the supplier/retailer to offer a further 4 years warranty on a device, you can bet they won't be anticipating any problems for 5 years. That would be enough for me to argue 5 years is a reasonable time for the goods to remain functional, and therefore be covered under Consumer Law. Look up the bathtub curve for an explanation of why they cover things for a specified period.
The main reasons for failures are capacitors drying out (read "cheap crap") and power supplies working too hard and running hot. Or parts like lamps and fluorescent tubes wearing out, these are anticipated and called consumables, but are usually designed to be replaced. There is no reason passive components in electronics should just fail. They have no moving parts. They do not wear out like mechanical parts. There is no real reason a resistor should not be resisting at the same value in 50 years time, or the solder holding it on the board would fail in 50 years, or the transistor should stop switching in 50 years… Think in terms of an LED vs a light globe. I've never seen an LED fail in normal use, unless deliberately overdriven, but a light globe is designed to burn and consume the tungsten filament, and is usually given a life of say 2500 hours.
Having said that, things do fail for bizarre reasons (a bit of dirt during manufacture, bad batches of something used during construction… etc.) But you should really just play the odds. Things typically fail almost immediately, or will last their rated life (not warranty period) and then start failing, as per the bathtub curve. If they fail immediately, no-one will question you returning it for refund or exchange. You should expect it to function until the other end of the curve. Statistically you would have to be pretty unlucky to have it fail at the bottom of the curve. Fortunately, that is where the current consumer laws protect you. What they are essentially saying is that you are covered from the start of the curve through the flat bottom of the curve. Then when you get to the upswing you are at "end-of-life" for the product. Because they have left the consumer laws vague about how long the warranty is, it is up to you to establish the curve and make your own decisions. Otherwise if you feel the need to take out insurance on everything in case of failure, despite the low probability of it occurring in that time, make sure you take out cover for getting hit by a piece of falling space junk while you are sitting in your house watching TV, the probability is about the same.
endotherm >" I don't see any real reason a name-brand TV shouldn't last for 10 years or more."
They should but how many are failing after 2 or 3 years?? regardless of price or brand…
From what I see …
purchase extended warranty… > less stuffing around and the term of the guarantee is clearly written. do read the terms though because you could get stuck with a replacement set that is nowhere near the quality of the set it replaced.
consumer guarantee…. > expected life is a grey area and getting the retailer to honour your entitlement may take a lot of arguing.
Reading some AV forums some "enthusiasts" seem to be abusing the CG deal and demanding replacements for the tiniest defect, things that 99/100 people would never notice. In time this will result in the conditions of the CG to be eased for retailers.
Buy a cheap set you expect to last for 2 years and you wont be disappointed.
Well, to make things cheap they use cheap components. Even the name-brands have to pinch pennies these days so they do it too. But there is dirt cheap crap with low reliability, and there are less expensive components with better reliability. If you want mil-spec grade, you have to pay big bucks. (mil-spec = military specification, the "absolutely-has-to-work" grade that they use in ICBMs and hospital life-support equipment). Consumers don't want to do that. I expect some cheap unit made with cheap junk would fail after a couple of years. You get what you pay for. If I paid more for a better set from a reputable manufacturer, I am paying for a longer life. I expect them to use durable parts which I expect will continue to work for many years. If it does not live up to that expectation, I know the consumer law is there to protect me.
I've bought cheap crap and yes, they fail after around 2 years or so. I also have 3 Sony TV's hanging on the walls that are used heavily every day and they would be getting close to 8 years, they haven't missed a beat, 0-defects. They replaced a 25 year old Sony tube set that still works perfectly. Sure some do fail, but not at the same rate as the cheap-and-nasties.
Purchasing an extended warranty does not make it easier. It is nothing more than a contract, and contracts are contested all the time, much like Officeworks trying to squirm out of a pricematch for example. Under the Australian Consumer Law, when you buy products and services they come with automatic guarantees that they will work and do what you asked for. The consumer guarantee is a law, a statutory set of conditions which the retailer is forced to obey, whether they want to argue or not. It is a relatively simple procedure, go to them with your concerns, if they don't want to work with you, remind them of their statutory obligations. If they still don't want to work with you tell them you will go to the ACCC, ASIC or your State/Territory consumer protection agency for enforcement. They will generally be helpful after that unless they like being tied up in litigation. And it is up to you whether you choose to do this through the retailer or the manufacturer or both.
As for "abusing" the CG? You have been given a number of rights by law, which you are exercising. I know I'd be unhappy if I bought say an iPad, but one of the pins on the connectors was missing or defective. This pin on the connector is only used for audio-out, so I never noticed that it didn't work. Then two years later I get given a speaker dock for my birthday. Only then do I find the missing pin and identify the problem. Well you and the other 99% that never plug them into speaker docks might think this is a trivial problem, but the rest of us pedants are mighty pissed at this tiny defect! If I had known at the time of purchase that this unit was defective, I would have rejected it and not have bought it. If it had been sold as a factory-second or the defect was made known to me at the time, and offered say 25% off, that would be a different story and I would have to accept that under the very same laws. But I paid full price, expecting a pristine unit, and by God, I'm going to get what I paid for!
The laws aren't there to screw the retailers by the way. They are there to protect the consumer to make sure they get what they are buying. I'm paying more for a Sony TV because of the company's reputation, its track history or durability (as well as other features like better signal processing circuitry and better LCD panels etc). If I'm paying twice as much than a standard TV, then I expect it to be twice as good and last twice as long. If it fails after 12 months then it really is no better than the lowest end of the market. Why the hell did I pay the manufacturer and retailer the premium Sony price they were asking if I was only given a "DimSum" quality piece of crap? In effect I've been ripped off, overpaid and under supplied. That is why I am being protected under these laws. Formerly the manufacturers and retailers would be rubbing their hands together — they pocket your money, knowing that you need a new TV to replace the failed one, and will soon be pocketing more money. But now you are entitled to get what you paid for, nothing more, and the suppliers have to give you what you purchased, nothing less.
Personally I would be disappointed buying a cheap set from the outset. Picture quality and performance is pretty bad, especially if you know what you are looking at (having worked in the professional video industry). But if you're not a videophile, and are happy just watching a moving image and not concerned about minor defects or distractions, or that's all you can afford, then by all means go ahead and buy a cheapie.
"You get what you pay for"
… and that is where the problem lies today, we don't, at least not with AV items.
(you can blow your horn about sony products all you like but nothing could be further from the truth there)
I am very aware of milspec and the difference in components of a set specification…. I made a earning dealing in them !!!! :-)
The AV market is a very hot place to be in business these days… in an attempt to compete against the flood of low cost items companies that have had a reputation of quality and durability are undoubtedly cutting corners to stay afloat, or to increase profit.
I am sure that if there was a brand on the market that did constantly use premium components and also backed their product with a no questions asked warranty service then they would soon gain many customers. The price for such a product naturally would be higher but if the assurance was there that you would get performance and reliability then I would not mind paying the premium.
The sad fact is that we have manufacturers with that sort of reputation but they are using that reputation to sell a product that is not worthy.
Look how cars have improved out of sight… you can almost buy a car today with your eyes closed and not get a lemon. Why not in the AV market?
My point about "you get what you pay for" was that if you pay for low-end products, you can only expect a short lifespan. If you pay more for a high-end product from a reputable brand, you should expect a longer life-span, and that is what is guaranteed by the statutory warranty.
I'm not necessarily spruiking Sony here, although I have had an exceptionally positive personal experience with them. I was trying to differentiate name brand vs low end. I have seen the brand "cheapen" over many years too, and can see the point people make when they say they aren't that great. They are in a marketplace where they are competing with products a tenth their price, and they have to cut corners to stay competitive. I'd take a Sony TV any day hands-down sight unseen, versus buying a Chinese no-name brand. Even if the build quality isn't as good as it once was, the production methods, component quality and more importantly the processing circuits are miles above any no-name brand. And that applies to most of the name brands today.
I'm sure there are ultra premium brands, lets say Bang and Olufsen, that have a premium reputation, charge an exorbitant amount and deliver what you want. Why aren't people flocking to them in droves? Probably because they aren't all that interested in the difference in specs, the fractionally better signal-to-noise ratio or whatever. They can meet their needs cheaper and are happy with the performance of a lower-end device. Personally I'm surprised they have enough elite users to keep them in business but there obviously are.
You lament that we have manufacturers with that sort of reputation but they are using that reputation to sell a product that is not worthy. Well, enter the Australian Consumer Guarantee, the great playfield leveler, which ensures that those manufacturers have to deliver the customers expectation. Sure, they may no longer last 100 years like the good old days, but things change more rapidly now (do you really need a domestic VCR that will last longer than 25 years?) If I'm paying ultra-premium, I want it to be working in a museum in 100 years time. If I buy a name brand, I want it to be working longer than 12 months, typically at least 5-10 years. That's what I paid for, that's what I want delivered. The market will either force them to improve the reliability or reduce their price. Then the price will be an accurate reflection of what the consumer can expect from the device. Otherwise the company profits will be eaten away with warranty returns until they go out of business.
I mostly agree with your comments though.
"ensures that those manufacturers have to deliver the customers expectation" - that depends how realistic you are, and also is far too promising. I would rather say negotiate and dispute. Modern Electronics don't use the older, larger, more tolerable components in electrical circuitry that once was used. You need to accept the reality , which is they are far more sophisticated in hardware due to micro-architecture and the components within are not only less tolerant,and in some cases run hotter.
"Bang and Olufsen" - Please dont tell me you call them a high performance screen……..
"Then the price will be an accurate reflection of what the consumer can expect from the device." - Dont over-exaggerate ,size, performance and features are also factors in the price.
"I've never seen an LED fail in normal use, unless deliberately overdriven, but a light globe is designed to burn and consume the tungsten filament, and is usually given a life of say 2500 hours." - I worked in AV retail for 5 years , and saw many lemons popup , some many months after being on display. Your world is too ideal.
How realistic am I? It is the law of the land. Sorry if it's unrealistic to expect people to follow the law or have those laws enforced against them if they don't comply. I'm not sure of your point or what reality I am not accepting. We are better at manufacturing transistors etc than we were 50 years ago. How does that make them less tolerant? Go back and read my comments where I say much the same thing about heat. A VLSI chip is just as prone to fail as a vacuum tube was. You'd need to compare failure rates and quote MTBF figures rather than just pulling numbers out of the air, or ask how many are failing after 2 or 3 years as a throwaway line. We can build ultra reliable devices, but it is usually not cost effective for domestic use. See my comment about mil-spec.
re Bang and Olufsun, I wasn't calling them high performance. It was a response to the contention that if there was a premium brand, people would flock to them in droves and all reliability issues would be moot. Please feel free to insert your premium brand of choice in this context. I couldn't think of another example at the time and still can't think of one that meets all the objectives.
I think you missed the next point. Yes those things have to be taken into account. What I was getting at is when everything is taken into consideration, market forces will make them more appropriately price their products to reflect all those features. Price them too high and you won't sell anything, too low and you won't make, or actually lose money. Then if the device costs $1000 more than a comparable product, I will expect something for that money, generally after-sales support (upgrades, firmware etc) and/or longevity or longer warranty, etc.
Yes things fail. I live in the same world as you. Not sure of your reference to the LED example though, that was making another point. In anything mass produced, things will be a bit off. Usually things will be picked up in quality control testing. Statistically things are due to fail very early or very late in their life cycle, see my comment about the bathtub curve. Do you want them to burn-in test them for 3 months on the test bench before they ship them to weed out the potential failures so you don't get a lemon? That would cost them, and ultimately you the consumer, a lot of money. It makes better financial sense to test them and if they pass initially, ship them with a 12 month warranty. They know better than anyone what the failure rates of their product is. They know things typically exhibit manufacturing faults almost immediately, tapering off sharply after a short time. Then there is a long period of relative stability (the odd failure, granted), followed by a rising number of failures at end of life. Exactly like the bathtub curve. The point being (pertinent to the original thread) it seems silly buying insurance against failures during the period in the product's life when it is least likely to fail. People who sell these policies are making a lot of money insuring an occurrence which has the lowest probability of happening. Why do they only cover an extra 2-3 years? Why not another 10 years. I'd buy one of those policies!
All I would say is google " light bulb theory" and watch the documentary. Companies now a days make money only if you buy a new item so they make it in such a way that you have to buy it new- new technology, parts specifically designed to go through only certain no of cycles etc.
True. Durability is only planned to meet a consumers expectation and these days it seems to be lower than eras past. Intentionally engineering beyond that would be a waste for the manufacturer.
@ endotherm… The 10 year policy sounds nice but imagine the cost??
Ouch!!
I agree somewhat with what you say about if something new is going to fail it will most likely do it during the early period of use but in the case of the 3 TV's that have failed on me in recent years they go like this…
DSE 19" LCD, 13 months..
Panasonic 42" Plasma, 40 months…
Panasonic 42" Plasma, 22 months.
Not quite within the terms of early use or burn in?
Will the failure of higher priced reputable brand AV products cause people to choose cheaper mid range alternatives? I think they will.
It is being proven to consumers that the more expensive AV products do not return the reliability that the price reflects.
The majority of users "just want a tv to watch FTA" and for the damn thing to last in relation to its cost. :-)
No, not worth it.
Background: Used to work for a call centre that took incoming extended warranty calls.
Most extended warranties aren't worth the money. When you go to purchase the TV, ask the sales person what the extended warranty provides that isn't covered by consumer law. They are merely a convenience when trying to get something fixed but really consumer law will cover you for faults outside the warranty period, in a reasonable lifetime.
The Checkout (done by the Chaser team) TV show did a segment on this.
Do you have some Gold/platinum creditcard which can offer additional warranty (1 to 2 years additinal)?
eg NAB flybuys Rewards Card(annual fee $65), no Excess as far as I know for claim for under extended warranty
also offer travel insurance….
atm they have that popular/Special offer: 0% p.a. on balance transfers for 15 months. Apply by 30 April 2014.
if not you may like to join one (I know it's only additional 1-yr but better than nothing)
eg NAB flybuys Rewards Card(annual fee $65)
no need to pay when there are free options :)
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/130603#comment-1799861
Definitely worth it, depending on the warranty conditions and price. If they offer pickup and possibility of getting a brand new replacement then get it.
We also have a Panasonic TV and have called on the extended warranty twice. It was so easy and hassle free so I would definitely do it
Extended Warranty = Hassle Free repairs or replacements.
For all the extended warranties I have purchased I have to replace 3 items (1 x iPhone 4, 1 x iPad 3 both with home button issues and my refrigerator defrost cycle when nuts and the whole panel iced up) Counting up all that I made my money back at least 5 times over.
Now I could fight each and every single one of them via the ACL as all those problems are design flaws (home button failing and the defrost cycle went nuts because the deicer wasn't designed right to stop the drain pipe being iced up) but it would take alot of follow up on my behalf to get any traction. I don't have time for that so I pay for the convenience.
Apple acknowledges the ACL now and anything to occur within that 24 month period is covered; only fools would buy their extended warranty for an extra 1 year.
lucky I switched camps after my purchase of the iPad 3. My Samsung has a 2 year warranty.
Who has the better service when problem occurs?
Yes the money that you may have to invest in complicated out of warranty matters that could have been resolved in one call. You should be able to negotiate heavily on these as the margins are good and helps the sales rep hit their target.
On a $1100 set it should cost no more than around $80. I think Apple care is a rip off however.
LOL wonder what will happen if the retailers are forced by a new law and have to read out loud the ACL to the consumers when sell them extended warranties.
Get the extended warranty. Panasonic had a known problem world wide with their plasma TVs. Just google 7 flashing LEDs of death.
Their reputation may be good, but they also have their issues. The current consumer laws help, but if your TV fails, you will be paying an inspection fee of an amount higher than your cost for the warranty extension.
Call AWA or another of their warranty agents and ask what their quotation fee is, I know what I am talking about here!
My Samsung LED tv just died a few weeks ago, and was only 4 1/2 years old. Extended warranty ran out after 3 years. It was an expensive model, up near $3k and two on-site quotes for fixing said the panel needed replacing, so about $1200 to fix. Panels are priced according to the cost of the original tv's. Of course the warranty on the new panel would only be 1 year so reluctantly looking to get a new tv. Both engineers (one from Samsung, one independent) said you'd be lucky to get 5 years life out of new tv's now. My advice is get the extended warranty for more expensive tv's as you don't want to be $2-3k out of pocket, but for those around $1k perhaps not worth it.
Nah dont worry about it mate, Panasonic is a decent brand - we've never bought warranties for any of our TV's and our first plasma TV from Panasonic has lasted since 2006. Its still in one of rooms haha.