Why the limit on warranty to subsequent purchasor?

At least Theta wrote up an explination of their reasoning:

http://www.thetadigital.com/faq.htm

Go to near the end of the web page.

I don't really agree with their reasoning as a transferable warranty will increase the resale value of their equipment. The increased value will make it easier for the original owner to sell and buy new again. Theta claims that because their gear is always upgradeable there is no need for an original owner to have to sell an old unit and purchase a newer on. Unfortunatly that is not always the case.

On the positive side, I have in fact had to deal with Theta on an out of warranty repair and want to say that they treated me very fairly.

John

I tend to agree with Sean and that's why always prefere local pickups of used components.

I sent this email to a manufacturer:

Gentleman,

What difference does it make who owns the unit, the original purchaser or a second owner? If you offer a warranty on your product you should honour any repairs needed within the warranty period regardless of who owns it at the time it requires service. Generally speaking quality products shouldn't need any repairs, I have plenty of components that have never required any warantee work. It's not a perfect world and unexpected failures do happen; I've had the misfortune of some of my components needing service either marginally out of warranty or, within warranty but I'm the second (or third) owner. In every case I've never been charged for the repair (although I may have to pay shipping to/from the manufacturer, fair enough). I consider that good customer service, so does other manufacturers you compete with. If I was refused warranty repair within the warranty period because I was not the original owner you can bet I would make sure the high end community knew about it, the !
'net is a powerful communication medium. The "dealer protection" angle you choose to advertise is unacceptable. I wouldn't ask a dealer to be involved in a warranty repair unless I bought it from them, I'm quite happy to absorb the shipping costs as required. Why write? I like to see good companies thrive, you're not doing yourself any favours. Best, Jeff

Kevziek - a disgusting display of ultimate capitalism? I believe that as a consumer we all have the freedom of choise to pick and choose what we buy. If we don't like the Company's policy, we are free to buy from someone else. The basic premise of business is to make a profit for the owners. There is absolutely nothing disgusting about this. If anyone is that offended by the policy they should vote with their wallets and buy from a company whose policies they like.

Sincerely, Scott - libertarian and proud ultimate capitalist. Caveat emptor!

The consumer who pays nearly retail, if not full retail is the only one who makes any money for the company. The manufacturer is not responsible to the second or third buyer since thay obviously have no relationship.
Companies who go above and beyond this 'origional buyer' warranty are taking a big risk. Most damage to equipment occurs when it is being moved, so second or third owner of a piece are a much higher risk than the one customer who actually paid them anything.
It would be fiscally dangerous to warranty everything after it has changed hands a few times. I'm not sure, but I would guess this business is risky enough the way it is, who wants to take additional risks???