Joseph said:
Sorry - my bad - $5. Even if it was $20, $160 is horrendous markup
for a part that *fails to to the job properly*.
I wasn't criticizing you - just stating facts. Yeah it is a shame that
we, as the end user, have to end up paying exhorbitant prices for things
that, though out of warranty, are obviously poor design. In general,
I'd say the main problem is that there are so many conflicting
constraints and pressures on designs due to space, weight, cost, etc. as
well as the need to explore new, uproven territory to stay competitive,
that the ultimate performance and longevity of a given part or system
can't really be known until it's put into the field.
It would be nice, though, if the manufacturers would take more of that
risk and uncertainty themselves (i.e., when it is obvious that there is
a problem with a given design, that they cover the cost rather than go
strictly by the warranty - just look at all the TSB's that discuss known
chronic issues - design screw ups basically, but the cost of remedying
is only within the scope of the warranty).
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")