Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 March 30

= March 30 =

Kill program on electronic devices after warranty expiration
OK, guys and gals. Here's one for you. In my nearly 15 years of managerial experience, I have, on multiple occasions (3 separate times), run across a phenomenon where electronic devices (namely computer equipment, but also once with a cell phone) completely spazzes out within days after the warranty subscription expiration. Now, this seems like too much of a coincidence to be a...well, a coincidence...but I find it hard to believe that major companies like Dell and RIM have some sort of self destruct program installed to "kill" a device upon warranty expiration. That sems highly illegal. On the other hand, I likewise find it hard to believe that these companies have their thechnological knowledge down to such an art that they can accurately say that your device will malfunction in EXACTLY 2 years and 1 day after purchase (a 2 year warranty being the for instance).

So, my question is two part.

1. Has this indeed happened. As in, is there a notable case where a company intalled a so called "self destruct" program to run upon warranty expiration. And...

2. Assuming it is just a coincidence, is there a word for the phenomenon, where a person thinks a "coincindence" is too good to be true...but in reality it is, in fact, just a coincindence. I'm not sure about how well I put into words that last part, but maybe an editor can glean what I am asking. Thanks, Quinn ☂THUNDER 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)


 * Regarding part 1, I seriously doubt that anything so overt has ever been done given the risks it would entail, but there have been suggestions in the past that some devices such as automobiles may have been designed with planned obsolescence in mind. Regarding part 2, the word is paranoia. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Book on amazon Made To Break--86.164.95.75 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, Louie, yes if you were to ask my wife she would say I am paranoid about everything. But I guess I am loking for a definition of the feeling that two or more simutaneously occuring, seemingly unlikely events are, in fact, more likely than they seem.  Maybe kind of like de ja vu in a way.  Paranoia I am aware of...and I don't think it is what I am looking for.  But maybe I'm just being paranoid ;) Quinn ☂THUNDER  01:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)


 * There have long been (unfounded) rumors that GE or whoever could make lightbulbs that last forever if they wanted to but design them to burn out after a few months so they can sell more of them. Supposedly there's a lightbulb somewhere that's been working for 100 years. Of course, they do make lightbulbs that do last for quite a long time, such as those in stoplights, but they are quite expensive. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You can see such bulbs yourself at the house of Thomas Edison in Florida. They give off little light, are never moved, immaculately cared-for, made from hand-blown glass, are terribly fragile, etc. But yes, they are nearing or have surpassed the century mark. See Edison and Ford Winter Estates. The Masked Booby (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * World's longest lasting lightbulb. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OP, is there a word for the phenomenon, where a person thinks a "coincindence" is too good to be true...but in reality it is, in fact, just a coincindence. The term is conspiracy theory. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My pick: Confirmation bias. 81.131.31.73 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some cars do come with a built-in remote-controlled kill-switch, so that the sellers can disable the ignition if payments aren't made, then repossess it at their leisure. This system has the intelligence to at least wait until the car stops, rather than have it stall in the middle of the highway, but even this could be dangerous, depending on where you happen to stop the car (you could freeze to death if out in the middle of nowhere in the cold without proper winter gear, for example).  This practice certainly should be illegal, but it seems to be allowed, at least in some jurisdictions.  An owner could remove this system, if he knew it was there and knew how to remove it.  But, it seems, most people don't. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Synchronicity sums it up better, IMHO. Robinh (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't a find a link right now but it definitely happened in the UK a few years ago that a burglar alarm installer wired in a timer chip that would set off an alarm fault a few weeks after the warranty expired, whereupon he would charge to call round and fix it (by removing the chip). He was caught when a DIY-er found the chip and realized it shouldn't be there.--Shantavira|feed me 09:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Suspect it is just confirmation bias, as suggested above. Everything has a window of when it might fail. Some stuff fails before the warranty expires. Some stuff fails long afterwards. Some stuff happens to fail right around when it expires. You remember the stuff that fails right around when it expires — you forget all of the stuff that doesn't. It looks like an ironclad correlation, because you're throwing out 99% of the data without realizing it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In nearly 15 years how many devices have you had that have NOT died within days of the warranty expiring? If you can't remember and/or didn't count, then it appears to be a clear case of confirmation bias. Also, when you say "within days", how many days?
 * As far as the technical capability to program a "self-destruct" at a specific future time - it's probably quite easy. Many electronic devices now have internal clock/calendars, and many have a specific action that occurs after first purchase/use, eg registering/activating software, loading a SIM into a phone. It would be technically very easy to program some action to occur at some relatively specific time after purchase or first use. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are buying inferior goods? FWIW I'm using a HP LaserJet 4 Plus printer purchased in 1994, with a Dan PC purchased in 1999. Both are working just fine and have only needed routine maintenance and upgrades.--Shantavira|feed me 14:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OP here. @ Mitch Ames- I think I like your answer the best.  You're right that there's a ton of equipment I've used, and continue to use, many years after the warranty has expired.  I just remember the one's that break because it seems...I dunno..."suspicious" that it happens literally within days of the expiration.  As far as the "within days" I do literally mean "days."  A Dell server just went haywire; the expiratation was March 20.  Last year an HP Printer went out Sept 02; expiration was end of August.  And a while back my Blackberry completely stopped working a week after the extended warranty plan ended, which I remember b/c I then bought an iPhone which I hated (and didn't have a warranty) but I was stuck with it, until just recently when got a Samsung Galaxy S which I like a little better, but it's kind of buggy (it does have a warranty plan, but I opted out).  Also, @ Shantavira the CPU equipment is being used in a busy hotel, so it probably gets more wear and tear than a normal home or office. But that's just a theory.  Thanks all. Quinn ☂THUNDER  16:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)


 * For the most part, the risks of them doing this would outweigh the benefits. If caught, they could go to jail for fraud, deceptive practices, etc.  But, even if not caught, customers would quickly come to regard their products as crap, and buy from their competitors, instead. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect a part of this matter is that manufacturers test their products and if they set a parts replacement clause that had a length LONGER than the mean-time-to-failure, then they would end up potentially losing large amounts of money on the product. So they test and set a period that is the longest they can get away with that still is a nice round number (IE a 6mo. 1-year, 3-year, ect.) but still under (potentially just under) the expected failure time. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Highly valuable wine
While reading Wikipedia's article about wine, I remembered seeing a TV documentary about some underground catacomb wine storage vaults in the Balkans or thereabouts, that were very many centuries old and supposedly extremely valuable. The bottles looked like they had a very thick coating of dust and cobwebs all over them, as if no one had touched them since the Napoleonic wars. I couldn't help but think that all that wine must have become undrinkable many years ago. So what makes this wine collection so very valuable then, if none of all that wine can actually be drunk? Or can it? J I P &#124; Talk 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This site (http://www.finestandrarest.com/german.html) suggests that the wine 'Rüdesheimer Apostelwein 1727' is the oldest drinkable wine. Given that that is coming up for 300 years old and considered still drinkable suggests that potentially (though I have no idea at all about wine/aging/storage/etc.) the bottles you mention could still be drinkable. ny156uk (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting read (that I have not read): The Billionaires Vigegar. My (extremely uneducated) theory is that at some price point, collecting (be it art, wine, or old sports memorabilia) is more about showing people how much money and taste you have, rather than actually enjoying the product. Buddy431 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that even wine reviewers have had difficulty telling the difference between a $12 a bottle red and a $150 a bottle white wine in blind taste tests... I think that is undoubtedly the case HominidMachinae (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

the name of the thingymebob...
wotcha all. I'm after he name of the device that you can use to copy a picture - nope not tracing paper or a photocopier... I thought it was called an emulator but it ain't unlesss my spelling is out. Basically it looks like several lenghts of mechano bolted together, it has a sucker or some form of anchor point in the middle, you attach this to the table between the picture you wish to copy and your blank sheet, one end has a pencil (with the blank sheet of paper under it) and the other end has a pointer to trace around the picture, as you do so the other end draws it out on the paper. You can adjust it to either increase/decrease the copy size. Havn't seen one since i were but a lad, they were the BIG thing for a while around about the 70's/80's. Hope y'all can help, thanksPerry-mankster (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That'll be a Pantograph. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks Tagishsimon, and so quickly as well, thanks again  Perry-mankster (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Etymologically similar, but only metaphorically the same, is Pantagraph. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with a pantechnicon. 92.29.119.112 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or pantisocracy, which I choose to believe is government through underwear. 81.131.5.44 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and the state religion wound be pantheon Perry-mankster (talk)
 * An electric Pantechnicon can get power via a Pantograph (rail), yes? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 15:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your call is important to us, yada yada
In Australia, when you call a company and get put on hold, it's very common for the recorded message to include words like: I assume this message is heard elsewhere too. Typically, you'll be told this at least half a dozen times while you're waiting to be connected to the person you want to speak with.
 * Your call is important to us and a consultant/representative/customer service officer will be with you shortly.

It's also very common for consumers to regard this “your call is important to us” business as bordering on an insult. It's been the butt of innumerable jokes, and is widely disparaged. Given that, why do so many companies continue to use this form of words? Have the people who create these systems never had to wait on line for 10 minutes or longer themselves, while being told 30 times or more how important their call is so please don’t hang up? Why do they welcome feedback if they’re going to ignore it?

Another common issue is the use of overseas call centres, which are staffed by people whose English ranges from adequate to virtually incomprehensible. Or maybe their knowledge of English vocab and grammar is fine, but their accent and use of unfamiliar intonation and stress patterns makes it hard for them to be understood. When you do finally get put on to a human being, it's still usually a struggle to have the communication experience you so richly deserve. People with any sort of hearing issue – and that's a lot of people - tend to find dealing with foreign accents difficult even when it's face to face and lip reading is available – but so much harder on the phone. (I imagine it's just as stressful for these overseas call centre operators to deal all day with what they perceive as "foreign accents", too - but at least they're being paid for it.) One Australian telecom company has a current marketing strategy that plays on this very issue, by assuring us that if you call them, you won't get someone based in the Philippines or India (that's their words). But that's only one out of hundreds.

So, once again, since the use of overseas call centres is so universally despised, why do so many companies continue to use them? Is it just about their bottom line and damn what the customers think? Is it just a fashion thing: being seen to be engaging in the same business practices as the mainstream companies?

If our calls are supposedly important to them, why are our views on these other issues apparently not important to them? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding insult to injury is their tendency to run ads for themselves while you're on hold. However, keep in mind the old axiom of this triangle: Good-Fast-Cheap. It's not possible to have all three at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason why they use overseas call centers, despite being universally despised is simple: it's cheaper. They figure the money they save by outsourcing phone support is greater than the money they lose by infuriating people. (Conversely, the Australian telecom you point to is betting that the money from the new customers their "no outsourcing" policy will get them will be greater than the money they lose going with more expensive domestic labor. But if everyone didn't outsource, you'd be back to where you started.) - I'm not sure about the "Your call is important to us" bit, though. (We get that in the US too.) If I had to guess, the occasional interruption makes you feel that you're *this*close* to actually reaching a human being (notice how they always interrupt the middle of the muzak, rather than wait for a natural pause or transition?), and thus makes the wait seem less than it really is. (It's not a 40 minute weight, it's twenty 2 minute waits!) It also could be that it by this point it's tradition, and no one's bothered to evaluate whether it's doing more harm than good. (I will say I do appreciate the interruptions with "... your estimated wait time is ...". That way I can know if it's safe to start another task, etc.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Addressing the question about accents, a lot of these call centers located overseas do also invest in training their staff in various varieties of English intonation and vocabulary (American English,"Global English", ...). Here, for example, is a list of "voice and accent trainers" associated with call center training institutes in India. (Just saying, things could be worse :-) ---Sluzzelin talk  01:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * These companies often invest in opening a call centre overseas based on analysis that shows that the savings on running cost will offset the cost of relocating, not realising that when the experiment plays out badly they'd have to even more to relocate the call centre back to their home country.


 * I know of a New Zealand telecom-related company that moved its call centre operations (which was a major part of its business) to the Phillipines, after being assured that the call centre staff all speak fluent English. As it turns out, the call centre staff all speak fluent, but slightly accented American English, which becomes very difficult to understand in New Zealand. Once they'd relocated, however, it became prohibitively expensive for them to move back, and they chose instead to re-train the Filipino staff to speak in something closer to a New Zealand accent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of years ago, when I had a problem with a bill based on a mis-read electricity meter, I couldn't get much sense from the company's staff in England, but eventually got through to a call centre in India where the operative not only spoke better English than many residents of England, but spotted the problem and cancelled the bill electronically within a few seconds. Some foreign call centres are of high quality.    D b f i r s   14:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wish I could say the same about TalkTalk's help line, they try hard and are civil, but their English leaves a lot to be desired as does the quality of their phone connection.85.211.232.234 (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Training is key. One company's help desk was in Eastern Europe, and although they had an obvious Slavic accent, they were very competent and understandable. If a company grabs anyone off the street, like if they were hiring fast-food workers, quality can suffer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * a bit off topic this, sorry: when i worked for BT (based in the east of scotland where it is considered that the local accent is trusted by the rest of the country - it's called the 'golden tone/voice) i learned how to circumvent the 'press 1 for this press 2 for that etc' just repeatly press 0, apparently it is a default setting for some systems and will connect you to an operator quicker than going through the menu. Granted it won't work on all telephony systems, but it has worked for me in the past. Perry-mankster (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a TV ad here in the US where a hairy man in an undershirt answers a customer support phone, under a hanging, bare light-bulb in a cellar, and says, in a thick Russian accent, "Thiz iz Peggy, may I how help you ?" The caller says "Peggy ?  Really ?", and the Russian replies with "Yez, yez, iz Peggy !".  It goes downhill from there. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a series of Discover Card ads, putting down the presumably questionable "benefits" of competing bank cards. Here's one: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else think that the little tune played at the end sounds like the last few notes of "Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Most telephone answering machines keep you on hold thereby capturing your attention for an unknowable time. An improvement is the machine that tells you "Your call is number x in the queue" where the number x decrements. That information is much appreciated by a busy caller who soon gets confirmation that someone is handling the queue and whether it is worth holding at all, and (s)he can estimate the waiting time before a human will answer. Dear Corporations, Your potential customers will love you for this little service and one day you may be able to afford the rocket science needed. But enough with the moaning about poor telephone answering machines that are only doing their best and never asked you to call them. If you ring the optician Krogh Optikk +47 2105 6128 in Oslo on a Sunday when the shop is definitely closed, a recorded norwegian lady greets you with (in norwegian) Thank you for holding. A consultant will answer your samtale shortly. That is nice but samtale means conversation which is not going to happen any time soon. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rocket science indeed. That reminds me of my pettest peeve: You ring the number, and are given a menu of choices.  You press the number you want, then you get another menu.  You press the desired number ..... process repeats until, finally, "Thank you for calling.  This office is now closed. Our office hours are .  Please call back then".  What was so hard about telling me that up front, before I went through the laborious and time-consuming menu selection process?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In some cases parts of "the office" may close at different times. For instance, the sales office may be open 24 hours a day, while the office you call to demand a refund is never open. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. That's where they have those doors marked "This door is to remain closed AT ALL TIMES".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the business, I've noticed most computer game companies tend to have US-based support. Zenimax Media just opened one in Ireland, which might be no easier for an American to understand but EU labor certainly can't be cheaper than American, Sony Online Entertainment's support speaks American English as well.  I think some sectors have realized that it was hurting their business.  I've also noticed that monopoly businesses (like cable internet, for instance) are more likely to use an oversees call center.  Perhaps they know the lower quality of service but just don't care because I have no alternative. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)