[Leica] Re: Equipment reliability

[lrzeitlin at optonline.net (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

On Jun 15, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Rei wrote:

> so true.  we ended up with all viking and a 48-inch subzero because
> the marginal cost over the standard appliances was a small part of
> the reno.  that being said, the subzero has needed several
> visits (ice-maker, door handles), the front of the viking range
> has fallen off and the viking stove's heat regulator gave out,
> which caused the oven to bring itself to such a prodigious
> temperature that both glass panels burst.  the fisher-and-paykel
> dishdrawer ($2,000) was so corroded and decrepit that we had to
> throw it out after 5 years.  when i told the repairman that my
> folks had the same kenmore washer the entire time i lived at home, he
> laughed indulgently.  it was as if i had asked why people didn't
> live to be 969 years old anymore.
>


Unreliability is often a problem with small production volume consumer 
items no matter how expensive. When Whirlpool, Kenmore, or GE make an 
item, several thousand units are in users hands by the end of the first 
month. They are usually under warranty. Most things that can go wrong 
are reported to the manufacturer early enough to be corrected within 
the first six months of production. (The same holds for software. Never 
buy release 1.0.0 of anything.) On today's news there was a report of a 
Mercedes dealer suing Mercedes because a $1,000,000 car (really) 
suffered four major equipment failures within the first six blocks of 
driving. He wants his money back under California's Lemon law.

This bodes ill for the first release of the digital Leica M. Wait until 
the second year. The original Leica M3 had significant  design changes 
during the first two years of production.

Larry Z