>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>The whole idea behind my definition is to create a fixed reference point for the term "quality". Without it, there's no way to have meaningful dialog about the subject, since different people have different perceptions of the word. If a product does what it's supposed to, and has the lifespan that it's supposed to, then it's a quality product. The biggest misconception is that for the producer of the product this has to cost more.
>
>Um, to get my thinking clear, then does this mean that if the producer makes a product that is intentionally meant to last only a short time, we can still call it a quality product? And does this mean that for a product with a warranty, the measure of the quality of the product is the warranty? ( eg your van that conked before the 70K warranty )

As long as the manufacturer makes it clear what the expected lifetime is and meets it, sure, it's a quality product. It's does what it's advertised to do.

As for warranties, it varies. It depends on the product. Many electronics are only warrantied for 30 days, but actually last for years. In the case of the van, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a transmission should last twice the length of the warranty. I've owned cars that have gotten up to 160,000 miles without transmission problems. Yet in this case, I had one conk out not once but twice, before there was a total of 70,000 miles on the part.

On that subject, I can name at least three companies that advertise a warranty that applies as long as you own the product or for life of the product. You draw your own conclusions from that.