pakalolo said:
obelisk said:
in the world i go out and work everyday, transferring risk wrought by a mismanaged distribution chain to the (aware) customer would potentially be the beginning of the demise of the business. i am not sure if this is necessarily a risk that arizer runs, however, given the nature (or lack thereof) of the vaporizer market. perhaps the manner in which this issue is resolved will reveal the character of the company.
The laptop I am writing this on is a Lenovo. I have Hitachi external drives connected to it. Next to them is a Canon G12 camera. In the corner is my ScubaPro diving rig. There are more items I could list but I'll stop there.
All of these products are only covered by warranty if purchased from an authorized dealer. I am not aware that these or any other companies with this exclusion are at any risk from their policy.
I will bet that the majority of whiners in this thread own products that have similar warranties, they just don't know it. Can we stop now?
Perhaps it is possible you are not as well versed with market dynamics as you think you are?
This is not a legal or moral or whatever question. It is a business question. The market, and its dynamic, supersedes everything. The markets of the products you describe and the quasi gray market of marjuana vaporizers are very different.
But I am not intrigued enough by your suppositions so as to engage in a discussion or trade opinions. My last post was a mere observation, not an assertion of opinion. The tone of your post, as I perceive it, informs me that perhaps you did not realize this distinction.
Let us pause while I recover from this rather rude interruption of my high and prepare myself for stepping out of satya.
Thank you.
Cost, especially varied cost, can often be a measure of risk. Loss of a customer, for example has a certain cost associated with it. Doing things to retain the customer has its own cost, too. Managing a distribution chain does as well. Fixing a solution has a cost, not fixing it has another one. If any of these costs are transferred to the customer, and the customer is aware of it, the risk of losing that customer high - which, in turn, has its own cost. It does not matter if there are legal protections stipulated. Or if morality excuses an action or charges an action with maligned intent. It is a matter of cost: this is the market dynamic. This cost will not go away by hiding behind law. Or lack thereof. Or morality. Or a sense of justice or fairness.
The examples you provide are probably sound, but not in this context. Primarily because I did not suggest, let alone say, that purchases from unauthorized resellers should be considered legitimate purchases that are accompanied by corresponding warranties. If I have questions about my warranty, I am not going to come here soliciting your take. Nor anybody else's. I will pick up the phone and speak with Arizer. I merely attempted to make the observation that the onus of ensuring the product is made available to the consumer through correct channels is often not the consumer's but the business', irrespective of any legal protection in any direction. While laws may protect the companies you mention of liability from an unauthorised purchase, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to inform the customer to a reasonable degree of what is considered an authorised purchase and provide a way to appropriate access, via a list of authorised resellers for example.
Perhaps that this is not a legal problem with a solution in kind, nor a moral or ethical one or one of justice or whatever else. Also, Arizer is not Hitachi or whomever else. They are a mom and pop shop, or perhaps slightly more evolved. They also operate in a market whose legality is extremely questionable. The lack of money and firm legal ground are two factors itself that will force Arizer to either attribute revenue loss to management issues, i.e. valid unforseen business expenses that expanding businesses commonly face, and seek the potential gain of brand building and longevity, or they can take a hard line as you do and perhaps take a risk with a cost greater than what this mismanagement of distribution is causing them. They are in the unfortunate position of being caught between two instances of risk, but luckily for them, the consequence (cost) of each instance is different. And the consequence they choose will speak volumes about those who lead the company. I don't think this is an opinion. But the statement opining that it isn't an opinion is, in fact, an opinion. Savvy?
Below are some questions that are, perhaps, relevant to your side of the discussion. Since this matter is of little interest to me (if I have an issue, I'll go to Arizer), I'll leave them to you and whomever wants to engage in this discussion with you:
Where does Arizer keep an updated list of authorized resellers for public viewing? What is the address of the manufacturer's website/webpage for this product? Where on the manufacturer's website or any literature directly offered by the manufacturer are the eligibility criteria for the warranty stated? The instructional manual defines the warranty, but does not state eligibility criteria.
Here is a product, with very little advertising or even company literature that I can see -- what legal room does a company even have in this regard? Very little I'd imagine (especially when one also considers the market), but I may be wrong.
).
. No spares in the UK for a couple of weeks at least. Will have to be very careful till then.
But I do feel like that when I see a certain slice of our user bases' posts.
Or at least that is what I will be holding on to. Before I revert to Ananda 
, allow me to steer this thread back to a more, um, agreeable direction: