CGA advice

networkn:

tripp:

I think its about time to put in Hard time frames for products, this way the stores/importers/manufacturer know that they need to support a product for a set amount of time and have parts made to cover that set of time before stopping their production runs of said models.

This should also improve manufacturing of low end "cheap rubbish" products that manufacturer expect people to throw away after 2 years and buy a new one (i.e. that $500 dollar 40" tv under these rules should last just as long as a $3000 tv and have parts for the next 5 years). Lets face it, years ago things would last for years and years, now "some" manufacturers want you to replace stuff every 18 months.

Yeah, Agreed. It should be based on price and product. Bottom line is that if you spend $300 on a 500 Inch TV, it's implied by common sense it's going to be made to meet a price point and therefore shouldn't be expected to last 10 years.

If you make TV's Mandatory 5 years, everything under $800 will disappear and there is a market for people who can't justify or can't afford the lower end stuff.

If they did put say 5 years for TVs, then there is the risk that we could end up with a lot of cheap junk dumped into the market, as 5 years isn't very long. Especially when compared to dishwashers, which have a far harder life. TVs generally have no moving parts, apart from components that heat and cool, so they should last a long time, especially LCD. I have an LCD monitor that must be 15 years old and works fine. CRTs had a more limited life as the tubes could die. Also one reason some TVs are cheaper is not because they are made cheaper and lower quality, but they are using older technology where the price has dropped, or could be using panels that are 'seconds' and have some pixel defects which didn't allow them to be used in the more premium TVs.

For our environment we should be making out products last longer. The other thing that could happen is that it may end up costing nearly as much to dispose of an appliance, as it costs to buy a new one. Maybe if the manufacturers were required to pay for disposal as well, there is an incentive to make the reliable and retain spare parts. For example I have a wood burner that is about 20 years old. Anything that fails on it I can get a spare part for. Even though it is only worth about $2000 new, you don't usually just replace a wood burner, you usually repair it.

networkn

mattwnz