shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3y77i wrote

It's all about the principle. The details can be tweaked until it works for the targeted audience. I imagine it as follows:

Year 2: the laptop is broken

The dealer: it's user damage

Me: Then I don't pay

I lose the product, they lose 50% in potential revenue.

If they want they can fix it and I will continue the payments.

Right now warranties don't give me that. I pay 100% in advance and pray. Eventually everything expensive ends up as "user damage" with no way for me to prove it's not. In the case of lease it's the same thing - even if the device is broken if it's considered user damage I have to continue paying. I understand insurance solves that but it doesn't incentivize the producer to make lasting products and as importantly doesn't give the user control in the process.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3x0hx wrote

I would prefer that scenario too but they already know there is not enough people in that segment to bring back the old quality. They simply adapted to the changes of the system so we need a new business model to lure them into making it while also giving us a tool to quit the scheme if the promise is not met.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3dndd wrote

It's not about getting in cheaper. In fact the first down-payment will be equivalent of a mainstream product. It's the only way to sell premium products to customers with decreasing income. Rent to own can have many variations. The one presented here is designed specifically to reward longevity and to guarantee no planned obsolescence.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja3a770 wrote

After a negotiated period. Anywhere from 5 to 7 years for standard users and 7 to 10 years for enterprises.

Compare that to my last 2 laptops which failed after 1 to 3 years of use.

On a macro level this model slows down the production/consumption cycle at both ends by reintroducing maximum quality paid for in installments.

Great for the environment too.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja37mt4 wrote

>If you are selling a product under its “value” with the idea that users will keep paying additional (on goodwill) after some period of time, you’ll find that users will just resell these products at high prices and buy another product at the “under valued” price.

Users are not paying on goodwill but upon inspection that the device is still functional. If it doesn't work then and only then they don't pay. Also if it's non-working they return it so they can't resell anything.

There is no under-valued price it just builds up with the longevity of the product. Failed promises failed payments. Unlike now where user damage saves the day every time.


shanoshamanizum OP t1_ja356v8 wrote

On the surface it seems like a rent to own but the big difference is that the user is in control and rewards the company for fulfilling its promise. Warranties require you to prove that it's not a user damage while here the company needs to prove the product is still functional. It's warranties reversed with payments in the hand of the user not the company. These are not the same products sold via different model but rather a forgotten class on its own. Products with no planned obsolescence.

On the other hand companies regain their beefiest market from 10 years ago - the most reliable and most expensive machines which were rebranded into consumer goods with planned obsolescence and sold at a fraction of their prices back then.

Same happened to cars in the 90s , same happened to laptops in the post 2010s.