Clydetz said:
I might be a dickhead but I am not a confused dickhead.
Your opinion of yourself isn't convencing. I like to think of it as additional evidence of your confusion.
By the way, self-psychoanalytical practices are skewed, as evident by your post above.
Lanza said:
If it's "broke" send it in until it is satisfactory.
How many times ? Who absorbs the costs ?
From the perspective of a retailer, these additional cost decrease profitability. It also greatly increases the chance that a customer pays more for the product. The customer stops purchasing from the retailer and eventually, the retailer stops stocking the manufacturer's product(s). In effect, a "win-win" situation is not created. In fact, a "win-loss" situation is created, momentarily, where the manufacturer "wins" and a certain portion of the "value chain" doesn't. Eventually, the manufacturer will see the loss.
As a consumer, increasing my costs by transitioning the product back and forth to the manufacturer creates absolutely no value. In actuality, it has a high chance of causing the consumer to switch to a different product, manufacturer, etc.. Who "wins ?" Not the manufacturer, who by all intent and purposes, is in business to maximize profit. Losing any portion of the customer base defeats the concept of profit maximization.