While technically speaking a warranty is legally binding insurance, for most consumer products it is primarily a marketing device. This is particularly true for longer warranties because electronics companies know that the vast majority of warranty claims will be not only within the first year, they will be within the first several months - in the industry it's called "infant mortality". And btw, 1 yr is by far the norm in consumer electronics.
More than anything, warranty terms are driven by competitive positioning and strategy, i.e., a company will typically provide the minimum required unless it believes it needs to use warranty for competitive advantage or to offset weakness. A company with a new product that claims breakthrough technology will market it to a particular class of customer for whom warranty is not a major factor. In fact some hi-tech companies don't even want customers for whom warranty is near the top of the list; these customers can be quite expensive. On the other hand, the company whose position is soft, or is mature and competing again new entrants, or has a poor reliability reputation, may offer extra warranty provisions to help offset those disadvantages.
Words are cheap. Try forcing a company to honor a warranty when it doesn't want to. In truth, you have no leverage nor any practical recourse. Companies, especially small ones, that make customer satisfaction a priority will often go beyond the strict terms of the warranty. With consumer electronics, a company's reputation and customer philosophy is worth more.
At the end of the day, there are some for whom warranty is a major factor in the buying decision. For others, having an exceptional new capability from a company that appears to stand behind its product, is sufficient. And for some, just having the latest-and-greatest new toy is all that matters, warranty isn't given a second thought. Every individual gets to decide for his/herself.
And so arguing about warranty terms is essentially arguing about differences between what one person thinks is important vs what the next person thinks. There is no "right" answer, except what the market ultimately decides. In time, the facts and owners will speak for themselves.
As far as arguing about what a company's policy should or should not be, well, that is one's prerogative, but it should be clear that the basis is just one's personal preference and no more. Not unless one is privy to the marketing and product and financial data, and the strategy, behind that company's decision.
For now, IMO it's best to give VXL the breathing room it needs to continue with its roll-out. We all benefit, as does VXL, from owners sharing their experiences, warts and all, so that's a good thing (keeping in mind that negative experiences are always reported but positive ones substantially less so). If the product starts going to hell and VXL leaves us owners in the lurch, no doubt we'll all know it soon enough and be fetching our pitchforks. If the product does well with VXL making sure most customers end up satisfied, we'll be even happier campers than we are now. For those waiting, you'll decide whether an exciting new product is worth it to you to take a degree of risk, the extent of which only you can judge. And for those clearly unhappy with what they see at this time, it would be best to accept VXL's invitation to wait, or to take a pass and just move on.
