Maybe its the (somewhat) older-timer in me emerging, at least as much as being (almost) 48 can allow you to rate as an (almost) older-timer. But I'm getting cranky with the seemingly increasing consumer acceptance and impotence about what seems to be a relatively short lifespan of newer, high-end electronics....TV's, computers, laptops, etc.

Although the notion applies broadly, I'm thinking more specifically about presumably higher-end TV's now versus, oh, 20 years ago. When I became a free-spending single guy, one of my first paychecks went to a high-end Panasonic PRISM-line color television. I special ordered it from the old Sight-n-Sound store in 1988, and paid $900 for it. It was an awesome television.

That television lasted eighteen years. It worked flawlessly until the day it died, and the day it died I knew I wouldn't be able to get it repaired, if for no other reason than the labor cost even if I could find parts.

So, that week in 2006, I took a step into HDTV, and plunked down $700 for a 32" HD set....and it died two months ago...just shy of six years. And the general expectation is, oh, six years, that's all you should expect seems the conventional wisdom. And everyone just accepts it.

I don't.

I understand that the fundamental technology in an old TV versus a new TV is different. I understand that a contemporary TV is essentially a computer motherboard hooked into a digital TV/signal processor, shoveling out data to some variety of panel. So, in that vein, I understand its sort of an apples to oranges to comparison. But not entirely. Something has to be said for longevity of that "current, better" technology in light of what it replaced.

Virtually every major flat-panel company these days doesn't even offer much hope of being able to repair sets much more than three years old, making parts almost impossible to find, and true diagnosticians impossible to train. Extract $700, $1,500, $2,500 +++ from the consumer, let it run a couple of years, and when it dies, do it all again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Seems to me the consumer is hanging on the end of a rope, and the general notion is that you should be kissing the manufacturer's feet to get 12 months of decent operation out of a TV, even though we all know their internal analysis shows MTBF and MTTF statistics that indicate probable life spans greatly beyond that warranty year. It used to be that service contracts were the loathesome ripoff of the age, but now, places like SquareTrade that sell $150 contracts for four or five years additional "protection" over some of these *very* expensive things are all-but becoming a necessity - even if they don't repair something, they give you at least some measure of compensation if it dies.

I look at someone like my mom, who purchased a seemingly good-name HD set from a good-name company, only to find it crater about six years after she bought it. She's no early adopter. She's retired on a fixed income, but TV is her entertainment. And she's not at all part of this "disposable everything" crowd who buys into "you should be thankful it lasted as long as it did."

I could go on, but you get the point. Laptops are about the same - you get three years out of one, and that's about considered average. Four years is pushing the envelope. I had a laptop that was, essentially, babied its entire life - rarely left the house, was never dropped, never abused....and it died after three years. And it was, of course, too expensive to fix.

So what do you guys think? How long should a $1,500-$2,000 TV last? A year? Five? Ten? What's reasonable? And what power or protection should consumers have against the manufacturers who are perfectly willing to let customers die on the fine on day 366?

Mind you, I'm no "bring in the gummint controls" guy. Most anyone who has read my posts here knows that all too well. But it seems to me that consumers, in general, are getting a decidedly raw end of the deal when it comes to medium to high-end electronics, their lack of durability, and the price tag that goes along with them. Is the only solution to just suck it up, and pay the four-figure tag every five or six years? Or does some different kind of pressure need to be brought to bear on the industry to force them to be more responsive to consumer complaints of poor performance?

Whaddaya think??