I definately agree with you on that one, as a matter of fact the representative for Nokia in norway did state that the average consumer only kept the cell phone for one or two years. However the defence replied with the fact that not everybody does so and that the big ‘crime’ being commited is not notifying the consumer of the life span itself. I think the same can be applied to almost every product, just because a majority of people do something should not mean we should expect inferior quality, regardless of what we pay.

In anycase Ill keep on updating the story on The Groupster, and will notify you guys when developments in the case arrise.

All the best.

Now, think of this from the manufacturers point of view. They need to spec out the components for a device. They need to find a balance between cost (whether it’s money cost, size cost, or labor cost) and actual usage case scenarios. Because the consumer wants the lowest possible price, and the best possible experience.

If the manufacturer knows that 60% of users will dump their phones in a drawer and never use them again after 2 years, 75% will stop using after 3 years, and 92% by 4 years (I made those numbers up to illustrate), then it becomes very difficult for them to justify spending more money or space on the device in order to keep it functioning for 7-10 years.

I suppose that an annoyed customer might call that “intentionally building the devices to stop working after 3 or 4 years”, but that sounds wrong to me. I think that “intentionally demanding a 36-48 month average time-to-failure in order to accomodate most user needs at a reasonable cost” a lot more likely.

Obviously, if there are laws that require a 5-year warranty (as claimed), then the manufacturer also has to balance their obligation to service and/or replace the devices if they start to fail, but that might be an acceptable trade-off for them: few of those devices will be in use, and of them, most will probably be working just fine. For the rest — well, the company will take care of it (we hope).

I don’t know that this is truly the thinking behind the issue, but I do think it’s something people should take into account, just to be fair.

I appreciate you coming to clarify this however!

I am the writer of the article. And I would like to clear some things up which might answer some of your questions. I misunderstood something but still its pretty bad. The story is how a norwegian organisation which focuses on consumer rights were sewing Nokia and Sony E. for having to short of a waranty on cell phone problems. The Norwegian government demands a five years warranty. During the trial people from both Nokia and Sony E. admitted that using the phone on a normal capacity gave their phone a 3 – 4 years life span before they stopped working. They then claimed that its because people now a days use their phone too much. Here comes the part which I misunderstood… The Oslo court where the hearing took place has transferred the case to the national court where Nokia and Sony E. will be put under deep investigation since now the question of whether it is infact done deliberatly comes into play. Regardless they seem to be ruling that the fact that Nokia and Sony E. are aware of the short lifespan and have never spoken about it before is grounds for lack of ethics and a law suit.

Hope this clears things up and if you have any question do not hesitate, if you want I will keep you updated on how the story develops. Appologise for the misunderstanding.

Christian