I wish this was a top level comment. People just want to hate on LTT. Is it because they are successful? People misunderstand his arguments about warranty. I.e. a warranty means nothing if the company won’t uphold it.
Have you even looked at the computer electronics business? Or lived a few decades? Otherwise how can you have no experience of a company deciding your use of a product doesn’t meet THEIR expectations and so they invalidate your warranty claim? Heck, look at what Intel is doing right now with its 13 and 14 series chips.
Legality is nothing without enforcement, and there’s like none of that for warranties in the US, and even less for global companies with overseas HQs.
Technically not legal, but depending on the wording, there’s a ton of gray area in what’s considered warranty-covered damage and what’s not warranty-covered damage. Companies absolutely take advantage of the gray area, even lying in some instances because they know that their users would rarely have the know-how to call them out on it and demand rightful warranty coverage. LTT’s argument is that if there is such large legal gray area on the warranty, it is meaningless to provide one to begin with
I wish this was a top level comment. People just want to hate on LTT. Is it because they are successful? People misunderstand his arguments about warranty. I.e. a warranty means nothing if the company won’t uphold it.
Is that even legal? If you provide a warranty, you have to uphold it. Since LTT is in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act.
LTT is in Canada.
TIL
Have you even looked at the computer electronics business? Or lived a few decades? Otherwise how can you have no experience of a company deciding your use of a product doesn’t meet THEIR expectations and so they invalidate your warranty claim? Heck, look at what Intel is doing right now with its 13 and 14 series chips.
Legality is nothing without enforcement, and there’s like none of that for warranties in the US, and even less for global companies with overseas HQs.
Technically not legal, but depending on the wording, there’s a ton of gray area in what’s considered warranty-covered damage and what’s not warranty-covered damage. Companies absolutely take advantage of the gray area, even lying in some instances because they know that their users would rarely have the know-how to call them out on it and demand rightful warranty coverage. LTT’s argument is that if there is such large legal gray area on the warranty, it is meaningless to provide one to begin with