[petsfed]

>I do know at least one person who is reckless with "no questions asked" warranties, and would ask for a refund with a straight face after trying to use a router to reduce spaghetti sauce spattering when he microwaved his dinner, but these people can't be that common...

There's common, and then there's common-enough-to-be-costly. REI had a notorious lifetime-return policy that they ended relatively recently because of abuse. How common was the abuse? No idea. I don't know many people who would Return Every Item (as the joke went), but it was common enough that there was always some really beat-up climbing shoes at their member garage sales.

And anyway, there's (at least) 2 kinds of costly: cost of returns, and cost to reputation when unqualified people brick their device, then tell all their friends that their router/refrigerator/laptop stopped working.

[jancsika]

> I don't know many people who would Return Every Item (as the joke went), but it was common enough that there was always some really beat-up climbing shoes at their member garage sales.

I think you chose an idiosyncratic case here. There must be a significant number of their customers who go there to get fully outfitted for a single, relatively short trip.

If you depend only on shame to keep most people below the age of, say, 30 from returning a rent check's worth of camping gear after a single use, well... as you stated REI no longer allows that. (IIRC that happened shortly after the 2008 downturn).

[petsfed]

It happened at least after 2013, because I went skiing with a guy who made it a point to return everything he'd ever bought from REI because of a court case he read about. It was a sort of super-boycott.

I chose an extreme case, because the cost is clear, and the consequences are very visible. Obviously, a company's peculiar financial situation will determine the acceptable return-and-refund/replace rate. Every company will have a financially acceptable return rate, and will look for easy fixes to keep their actual rate below that. Barring replace/refund for user modifications is a way to lower the refund/replace rate, without actually decreasing the number of items that get returned. There's still a cost to inspecting devices for user modifications, and that cost may in turn lower the acceptable refund/replace rate, but it does mean the product development people have to spend fewer resources eliminating potential sources of failure

None of this is to say that I think firmware shouldn't be field editable. Just that barring those sorts of things is low-hanging fruit and (in general) pretty easy to sniff out if the device is just bricked, not permanently damaged. I think manufactures could instead enable firmware updating after cutting a particular trace, to the same effect. Thus, the would-be hacker must knowingly physically damage the product in a way that clearly voids the warranty, and then they're free to modify to their heart's content.