> $40 DVD players are a waste of money. They don't even last a year, > their output is TRASH.
That's funny. My cheap DVD player is now six years old, and is working fine. I might buy a more expensive one if it broke down, having a better feel for what's needed and more important I now know that I want to have a DVD player around, when back then I was hesitant.
On the other hand it probably will last forever, since I pulled a DVD recorder out of a recycling bin back in June, and after a bit of adjustment it works find. That too had to be cheap.
Greegor wrote: > On Oct 26, 2:59 pm, enough <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote: > e > I use Vlc to watch my DVDs. No locked controls or forced trailers
> Does it have an HDMI output?
It's *software*. It does iff the host computer's video card does.
> Heh. Isn't that the same compnay that makes sawdust logs for fireplaces?
LOL
Duraflame
-- Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"! It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars, fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting. Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
> RichA wrote >> enough <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote >>> http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09335.html >> $40 DVD players are a waste of money. They don't even last a year, > I read about how some cheap portable CD players were being put together with hot glue,
Makes sense with stuff no one ever repairs.
> and how they were ment not to last more than a year.
Mindlessly silly. There is nothing in a CD player where that approach is even possible.
>> $40 DVD players are a waste of money. They don't even last a year, > I read about how some cheap portable CD players were being put > together with hot glue, and how they were ment not to last more than a > year.
People get what they pay for. They seem to want cheap, so they shouldn't be surprised when they get things that can't last long.
I paid $500 for my first printer, in 1982. Wasn't anywhere near letter quality, was terribly slow, had no descenders, but hey it was pretty much the only printer I could get for that little.
I paid $400 for my next one, in 1984, it was a daisywheel and gave me good quality printing.
I then paid $300 for my second dot matrix printer in 1989, it was faster than the first two, and did give near letter quality, so it let me do away with the two previous printers.
Printers became a "necessity", people even thinking they had to have color, so manufacturers started providing that "need". The lower the price, the more they could sell, since people didn't want to pay hundreds of dollars. So the prices dropped, and while mass manufacturing can drop costs, one has to believe that they had to take steps to make it cheaper to make.
Look at the first generation of anything. It's sturdy, lots of metal, and big, and very very expensive. The price drops, more people buy, they cut manufacturing costs, and it keeps cycling through until there's not much metal in the unit, and it's dirt cheap.
If you pay hundreds of dollars for a printer, you expect it to last a long time, and may be even willing to spend money on its repair.
When it's a few tens of dollars, you certainly won't pay much to have it repaired (so then that even drops the manufacturer's incentive to make it repairable, especially if making it throwaway makes it cheaper to make). You also won't grumble when it fails, "oh, I only paid $30 for it". How many inkjet printers get tossed because people decide it's better to buy a new printer ("hey, I got a new printer, it's better than the last one") than buy new ink cartridges for the old?
Those people have decided at what point something is cheap enough to throw away, and they've decided that the best product is something cheap.
|
