Thinkpads Forum

mikemex wrote:Case 1: Computer breaks after initial 3 year period but with extended warranty for another two years. I don't know where did you quoted it but on Lenovo's site it says $329. $329 spent.

I don't know where you get those quotes, but Lenovo's site for 3yr-5yr depot extension quotes $179. And you can get it for less than $150 through some resellers or through calling Lenovo and bargaining. So, yes, if you spend $329 on it, you are a sucker, but no more than if you pay double price on any product or service you might want. This is not to claim that for $150 it's a good investment of money, but just to stop the misinformation you're spreading.

mikemex wrote:Like I said, there is only one truth and the best way to keep people from it is to make them believe that all opnions matter.

In classical philosophy, you are probably right - there is only one truth. However, as many other things in life, it is rather complex and multifaceted. To think that one can grasp and summarize all of the truth with a simplistic approach or that one's preferred modus operandi is the globally optimal - that is arrogant indeed.

I don't care about your claims. If you check the thread again we were talking about MY system and I simply requested a quote with my model serial number. The rest of the discussion revolves around that.

If we were talking about art I would agree with you, but economics is an objective brach of knowledge and it isn't really that "multifaceted". You see, when there was speculation about Bermuda's Triangle the final and solid proof that there was nothing special there came from the isurance companies who didn't charge any special rate for crossing that zone.

Things are simple: corporations have a profit motivation and usually no moral code. They don't assume responsibility over their own mistakes as one would assume. If they manufacture something defective one would expect them to pay for it out of their own pocket like a mature person would, but in reality they simply charge you more and pay anything that goes wrong with your own money. When things don't go wrong they simply pocket that money. It might give you peace of mind, but emotions are no subject to economics (it's a memorable quote of Marlon Brando's "Quemada").

So the concept of "warranty" is laughable for anyone who knows the most fundamental ways of how a business is run. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly lacking clarity of mind: they assume they are making decisions based on reason when what's really beahind them is fear, which is an emotion.

mikemex wrote:If we were talking about art I would agree with you, but economics is an objective brach of knowledge and it isn't really that "multifaceted".

Yes, yes, I am sure the economics geniuses whose scientific methods have brought the latest global financial crisis would agree with you.

With your claims regarding warranty I don't care to argue. You are entitled to your opinion, and you may be as narrow-minded as you wish. You are free to believe that you are in possession of the ultimate truth, if that helps you sleep better at nights.

mikemex wrote:Of the responses I've got probably Bill's makes the most sense. I understand the logic of valuing your own time, but I don't agree with it.

I too think that how much one values time is an important consideration in this debate. If you have only one computer and it breaks, you can lose a lot of time trying to get it repaired or replaced. However, if you have multiple laptops and one dies, you can just toss it and switch to another one that works. Also, for many people, having a peace of mind is worth some money, too. In conclusion, while corporations certainly do make lots of money from the extended warranties that they sell (i.e. consumers as a whole lose more than they gain), for some people it may still make sense to get these warranties.

On this forum, many people name one more reason for buying extended warranties: to increase the laptop's resale value. I don't buy this argument, because more often than not, the value increase is smaller than how much you pay to extend the warranty. For example, let's say I have a T60 whose warranty is expiring next week. If I don't extend this warranty, I can sell this laptop for $300. If I extend the warranty for two years for let's say $150, this extension helps only if I can sell the laptop for $450 or more. From my experience, it's easier to sell an out-of-warranty 3-year-old laptop for $300 than the same laptop but with 2-year-warranty for $450.

mikemex wrote:Case 3: Computer breaks after initial 3 year period without extended warranty. 3 Years down the road a $1,000 machine is probably worth no more than $400-500.

Even less than that. A while ago I came across a very thorough study that tracked the sale prices of laptops for several years. It concluded that on average, a new laptop loses 40% of its value after the first year, another 40% after the second year, and then 20% annually after that. That means $1,000 becomes $288! That's one reason why I never buy extended warranties, and the other reason is I have so many computers that I won't have much down time if one of my computers suddenly dies.

mikemex wrote:If you really value your time, then always have a spare machine ready.

I totally agree, like I said above.

My daugher's iPod Touch died a week ago and was replaced by Apple within 24 hrs, no questions asked.

Our "initial" A31p went through several motherboards as well as screens during the original three-year warranty, and through one of each within the 2-year extended period when it was no longer owned by us.

I sold a T60p to a fellow forum member and the VRAM got corrupted on the very last day of its original three-year warranty...which means that he was less than 24 hours away from owning a very expensive brick...

The way I look at it is that one can't always win. I paid $300 for an extended warranty on my Odyssey (notorious for trans failures) and haven't used it for anything at all. But I hardly count that as a loss... ...quite the opposite.

One has to figure the cost of his/hers own labour into the equation as well: as fast as I may be when it comes to the machines that I know intimately (A3x/R5x/T4x) it does take me more than an hour to rip one completely apart and put it back with a new screen or planar. Given what I charge for my time, I see absolutely no reason to turn down a $150 offer for two more years of warranty on a ThinkPad...

My $0.02 only...

ajkula66 wrote:My daugher's iPod Touch died a week ago and was replaced by Apple within 24 hrs, no questions asked.

This reminds me of one more confounding factor in this debate: "no questions asked" is probably the norm but is certainly not always the case. Requesting warranty service can be a hassle sometimes, such as the technician making things worse, the depot claiming "water damage" and refusing to repair, spending many hours on the phone, etc.

ajkula66 wrote:Our "initial" A31p went through several motherboards as well as screens during the original three-year warranty, and through one of each within the 2-year extended period when it was no longer owned by us.

Good for you, but again, what I said above about Lenovo winning and the customers losing was based on averaging across all customers.

Like I said before, there are good reasons for extending warranties, and there are equally valid reasons for not doing it as well. Whether one should buy extended warranties depends on so many factors such as the cost of the laptop itself, how many backup computers one has, how valuable one's time is, etc. For me, extended warranties aren't worthwhile because I have so many computers and I almost never pay more than $400 on a laptop anyway -- I paid $331 for my D820, $237 for my HP 5101, and $170 for my Sony Z1A. If one of these machines dies, I can sell it for parts to recover a significant fraction of what I paid, and I won't have any down time. And remember, all these laptops are depreciating as we speak. Let's say the Dell D820 dies a year from the date I bought it. By then, it will be worth only like $265, and by selling the hard drive, two 2GB DDR2 sticks, AC adapter etc. separately, I can probably get back at least half of $265.

pianowizard wrote:Whether one should buy extended warranties depends on so many factors such as the cost of the laptop itself, how many backup computers one has, how valuable one's time is, etc.

To add to this - how much one is attached to a specific computer.

mikemex wrote:So insuring always costs you $329, but not insuring it costs either $250 or nothing.

Again, only if you ignore the time costs of replacing a machine, moving data etc etc.

mikemex wrote:People learns a lot about computers, but they usually don't understand their own motivations and desires.

Just as you don't seem to understand the motivations and desires of others.

mikemex wrote:That will turn your cost of ownership close to zero.

Not by a long chalk, unless you choose to ignore a whole range of costs, as you are consistently doing.

Cheers,

Bill B.

Sorry, but I just have to toss in my2cents worth here.

First, the insurance issue. Then in another post, the opinion and\or theory issue.

Unless something has changed that I am not aware of (a possibility I admit that's quite possible!),
sellers and\manufacturers offer maintenance contracts and less commonly insurance on electronic products. There are also combinations of the two. For instance, Best Buy offers maintenance contracts with insurance features (or at least they once did). The maintenance aspect covered hardware failures and the insurance aspect cover one instance of a broken display ( for laptop PCs) and damage caused by a drop (one incident per life of contract).

"Insurance" is a financial product first developed a few hundred years ago but the now defunct Loyd's of London. Loyd's insured things and activities based on per case request. Insurance evolved since then and there are many variations but the basic concept is a group coverage of risk of loss, which is a mathematical endeavor or in today's rather loose language, "science". Any insurance mathematician, or actuary, will tell you the proper way to think about insurance is mathematical, not emotional. The decision to purchase or to not purchase insurance is a business decision and as such cost, money, & risk are the appropriate considerations.

Maintenance contracts, odd as it may seem, began with what are now inappropriately called HMOs or Health Maintenance Organizations. One of the first evolved with the famous physicians, The Menningers, who built their famed hospital in the middle of Midwestern USA corn and wheat fields, very near a railroad track. A railroad tycon made a deal with the Menningers to maintain the health of the railway employees for a set annual fee per each employee and free use of railroad seats. This allowed the Hospital to become state of the art. It sent staff members to observe the cutting edge proceedures, attend conferences, etc.

The maintenance contract discussed in this thread is actually an insurance company misuse of the term and it is definitely a modern insurance company product. Experts from the team at Consumer Union (the non-profit organization run by The Association for Science in the Public Interest & which publishes "Consumer Reports" magazine) to various consumer experts like Clark Howard, Bruce Williams, & Dave Ramsey to name a few and professional actuaries agree that in general maintenance contracts do not make sense from a consumer's point of view.

The experts reach this conclusion mathematically weighing cost, risk, use, and potential return. The fact is 75% of a maintenance contract DOES NOT GO TO the insurance company. 75% stays IN THE STORE. In many big box stores, the sales person gets at least 25% of the price you pay, which is why the sales staff of certain stores are obnoxious about trying to get buyers to buy a maintenance contract. A major part of the reason, Highland Appliance went belly up (Best Buy bought the remains of the Highland chain) is due to the aggressive manner in which the sales forced pushed maintenance contracts.

Bottom Line, the insurance companies that provide maintenance contracts for consumer products find the contracts HIGHLY profitable, though they take only 25% of the amount buyers are charged! Why? Because, as any insurance company actuary can tell you, the buyer has as much chance of benefiting from a maintenance contract as he does winning $200 from a instant lottery ticket.

Sit down and cipher every maintenance contract you purchased over the past 4 years, how much you paid for them in total and then
tally the total amount you saved over the past 4 years. You would have been much better off had you not purchased a single one.

The proper thinking for decision making about insurance (again, consumer maintenance contracts are not true insurance) is actually simple. You insure what you cannot afford to lose. By way of example for purposes of illustration, I'll use life insurance.

As experts will tell you, the major famiiy bread earner with lets say three children & a say at home spouse who earns $50,000 a year or more and who does not have life insurance can be considered irresponsible & a spouse who is silent about the lack of life insurance foolish. The thinking is the family cannot afford to suddenly lose the breadwinner. That is an unacceptable risk, unless the breadwinner has adequate life insurance.

A person is paying on a house. s\he has $50,000 equity in it and still owes $150,00. Yes, the chances of a fire is less than the chances of his new PC dying but the chances of it and a combination of risks such as a B/E, hail or storm damage, backed up plumbing damage, etc is a sum total risk that is (unless he lives near a Western USA Forest) significantly less than the risk he has of his new major brand PC dying BUT it is a $50,000 plus risk (if the house burns down, he still owes the $150,000), a potential loss he cannot afford or does not wish to chance facing.

A rational person will risk losing the cost of a laptop as that is one he should be able to afford. In fact, the risk of loss REMAINS, even if he buys the maintenance contract. Ask any college student. Try to find a, let's say, 3rd year college student who doesn;t know a student who had their new $700 plus laptop stolen their freshman year or a student who dropped their new laptop.

I do not personally know a single person who had their major newish brand name PC die on them -and I know a lot of people-but just this year alone, I know two freshman who lost their new laptop PCs stolen and one who dropped hers about two feet and thus trashed it
(a Gateway). One of the freshman had her new $1,500 MacBook Pro stolen her first week of college! She asked two students sitting at her table to watch it while she went to the restroom. When she returned, the students and the Macbook were gone.

They students did not have insurance. They did have maintenance contracts.

--Bruised

mikemex wrote: If we were talking about art I would agree with you, but economics is an objective brach of knowledge and it isn't really that "multifaceted".
If we were talking about art I would agree with you, but economics is an objective brach of knowledge and it isn't really that "multifaceted". You see, when there was speculation about Bermuda's Triangle the final and solid proof that there was nothing special there came from the isurance companies who didn't charge any special rate for crossing that zone.

emotions are no subject to economics (it's a memorable quote of Marlon Brando's "Quemada").

1) You seem to assume "objective" is superior to "subjective". I think you would agree or accept that mathematics is often referred to as the most perfect science. Actually, its neither. It's not science and it's not perfect, a fact any mathematician will tell you. Important here is this - mathematics is a subjective discipline. In fact, Mathematics is a close relative to philosophy, not even a cousin of science.
Simply put, science is a laboratory and experimental field. Science seems to have the best tools and logic for studying things, for study of the visible, so to speak. The scientist as a scientist is an authority about sensual experience, about things outside the individual mind and hense OBJECTIVE.

2) Mathematics, theology, & philosophy are related disciplines as they specialize on analysis of the INVISIBLE, or ideas. Now, it is a great error of modern Western man to assume that the subjective is inferior to the objective. The objective refers to things that more than one person can observe in some manner and discuss, apart from himself. For instance, you prick yourself with a pin and feel the pain. That specific pain is SUBJECTIVE. No one else can feel your specific pain, only you can.

Philosophy, Theology and MATHEMATICS deals with observation, study, analysis of IDEAS that have no specific, direct connection with any objective thing or object. Yet, there is objectivity to it. If there is no objective reality or existence to ideas, then no idea could be rationally discussed and debated. For instance, "Justice" like a perfect square has no existence outside the human world of idea.
In nature, you can find no perfect square, triangle, circle, no numbers.

Economics is erroneously referred to as science. It is not. Economics is widely considered the king of the behavior sciences. There is a big problem with this. There are no behavioral sciences. There are disciplines called sociology, psychology, social-psychology, economics but none of them is science. Economics does appear to use some elements of science but they do not add up to making econmics a science. The great economists, by the way, were not economists. They were philosophers, beginning with Adam Smith and extending through David Ricardo, even modern Lugwig von Mises. Look up their bibiliographies and you will find they wrote on a number of philosophical subjects.

Philosopher John Locke made a few huge contributions to so-called "Economics." One was a treatise that makes Karl Marx's notions of labor value of work nonsense BEFORE Marx wrote anything (Engels, Marx's only friend, wrote the books that have Marx on them as the author. Engels used Marx's notes. He was a wealthy busy mill owner who didn't have time to sit for hours doing library research. The few Americans who can read a foreign language should read some of the many articles Karl Marx wrote during his long career as newspaper editor and writer. Marx was a gifted writer. A sample of his writing translated into English is the book "The Communist Manifesto", which contains little if any new ideas. It is great prose and thus the only writing by Marx most American lefties ever read.)

Marx, and the marxists chirp this like baby birds, claimed capitalists do no work. They live off the labor of others. He reaches this weird conclusion by defining work very narrowly. Locke demonstrated and explained years before that capitalists provide very valuable work, work that results in jobs and economic growth. People like Warren Buffet certainly feel like they work 70 hours a week! Marx was strongly biased against people who worked with money, especially money lenders and bankers. Truth is Marx was the very spoiled, overindulged son of a successful lawyer and he was a spend thrift from age 18 onward. He was also a drunk. Marx hated jews (he was very much a Jew himself) because the Jewish money lenders he borrowed money from all the time were so audacious as to expect him to back them back. Marx went through three fortunes and not by letting his friends help themselves to his money box. He had no friends but Frederick Engels and their relationship was very strange indeed.

So-called Economists called Marx an economist. Marx would be surprised to learn he was an economist. His PhD was in philosophy and all of his study and thinking was in the school of neo-Hegelian. In fact, he was a member of the "Young Hegelian" philosophy group. He also constantly told revolutionaries "Let me make this clear. I am no Marxist"

But then the great teacher Prince Siddahartha repeatedly told crowds before he taught "I am not a God. I am not a holy man. I teach no religion" you know this Prince as The Buddha and millions "know" him as a God.

--Bruised

mikemex wrote: Things are simple: corporations have a prSo the concept of "warranty" is laughable for anyone who knows the most fundamental ways of how a business is run. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly lacking clarity of mind: they assume they are making decisions based on reason when what's really beahind them is fear, which is an emotion.lackofit motivation and usually no moral code. They don't assume responsibility over their own mistakes as one would assume.

In an ideal world of Ayn Rand's making, corporations would simply pursue profit and follow no moral code. That would also be true according to the theory world of Karl Marx and the theoretical world of "The Wealth of Nations: by Adam Smith. This is the case also of the supposed pragmatic world painted by Machiavelli who then goes on to build political principles suited for a certain ideal world of his own making.

"corporations" is one of several big subjects discussed today as if they are persons. "Racists", "The Rich", "Black People". "White People", "The Chinese" are other mystical people similar to the conspiracy theorist's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent "THEY" or "THEM".

The first error common to all these deified groups is the assumption that they all think and act alike. The second is the assumption that they are in fact a "they", or a true sociological group, a club or association with regular meetings, shared agenda & a plan.

The facts say otherwise. If corportions were rational people who are members of a specific, single species, the flock would never have allowed Barack Obama to become President. Once President, the corporate species would never have allowed him to live. Third, there would not be the cut throat competition that exists in for instance in the airline, auto, TV Network, "Cable TV Services", "Cell Phone, or banking business. Sure there are exceptions but they are not the work of a person called a corporation.

The exceptions are the work of men and small groups of men. Ever unethical Microsoft is the work of Bill Gates and a few other men at the top and Microsoft cartel members like the senior executive-major share owners of Adobe Software, Dragon Speaking Software, etc working together.

There are just as many examples of big corporations that exude ethical conduct. Easy examples are the non-profit multi-national corporations The Salvation Army & Good Will, which are church owned and operated. Examples of highly unethical non-profit corporations are any of the mutual insurance companies, The American Red Cross and certain state Blue Cross Health Insurance non-profit corporations --Michigan Blue Cross is a prime example of an unethical non-profit Blue Cross. Despite bleeding losses for three years and only insuring 1.4 million, the CEO got a 35% pay increase and he already made 40% more than the CEO of for profit Humana, which insures 30 million persons!

Some industries are filled with unethical, but legal, practices such stockbrokers, licensed financial advisors, licensed real estate sales agents and brokers, the Mutual Fund business and the crown champion licensed attorneys. But it is people, individual people who do the doing, not "attorneys", not "financial advisors", not "attorneys". Some business are simply more open to dishonest and unethical practices than others. The stockbroker earning from EVERY transaction, good or bad; the Fund manager getting the same percentage to managed a fund whether the fund owners win or lose --how ethical is that?

Is the US auto repair business or the home small contractor or home heating and cooling repair business filled with ethical princes or saints? Far from it. Many years ago, I ended my career as an auto mechanic after one year. I could not find a single garage to work for whose owner DID NOT expect me to rip-off women. I was to call a flooded engine a $100 rebuilt carborator job or worse a fuel pump failure, a simple tune up was to be a major repair, a simple brake pad job was an expensive brake drum and cylinder failure job...

I remember being told "we should make at least as much as an illiterate, unskilled UAW auto worker!" It seemed like the entire local services industry was corrupted by a sour attitude over the ridiculous pay and benefits of UAW workers, many of whom couldn't even figure out how to balance their check book.

--Bruised

Since I could see this thread getting locked very soon, my last two cents times two...

BruisedQuasar wrote:

His PhD was in philosophy and all of his study and thinking was in the school of neo-Hegelian. In fact, he was a member of the "Young Hegelian" philosophy group.

This is true of the very early stage in Marx's development. Most of his important work is actually anti-Hegelian, and his own philosophy is in many respects based on directly opposing everything Hegel believed in.

Yes, I've read Marx. And Engels. And Lenin. And Trotsky. And several others that most of the people around here have never heard of.

As well as Kant, Hegel, De Spinosa, Kirkegaard and Nietszche to name but a few not belonging to the above "team"....

And no, I'm NOT a leftie by any stretch of imagination.

That being said, I'm dead certain that Ayn Rand, Adam Smith and Karl Marx would get a chuckle out of the manner in which this thread has gone from availability of T61 series in particular form to a whole array of semi-rants based on people's perceptions of economy, philosophy, emotions, sociology...etc....

Oh, for heavens sake, get back on topic right this minute!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IBM/Lenovo/etc don't sell extended warranties as a community service --- they sell them to make money. So don't buy one unless (a) you have reason to believe your computer is more likely to break than IBM/Lenovo thinks, or (b) you wouldn't have the cash the fix it. Incidentally, I'm typing this on a 600X, built May 2000. Runs XP just fine.