OK - I get it. You're a Makita fan...
Sure you have. How many times have you heard someone on this forum talk about how their Milwaukee tool went belly-up and Milwaukee sent them a new one? Dozens?
I've heard hearsay-type stuff "My buddy had his XXXX fail" but most of the heat seems to come from people who don't actually own the tool. I have heard about some out-of-box won't-charge issues, but...
How many times have you heard someone talk about a Makita tool failing at all?
"Hearing it" isn't a statistically-significant way to determine what is or isn't happening. Also, I'd guess Makita is a much smaller-volume player in the US, and probably has an even smaller footprint in places like GJ.
But to answer your question: very little. Part of that is the the above (though I have zero data either). My impression is they make pretty good tools, too
I've used Milwaukee and Makita tools side-by-side working on projects with friends and Makita's ergonomics are superior. There's a reason every other major brand has moved away from in-grip batteries for 12V.
I've seen a lot of poor in-handle batteries, but I'm an absolute fan of my M12 stuff. My main beef is lack of on-battery level info, but it's a small thing for me.
Ring lights are nice for visibility, not so much for longevity and reliability.
What data do you have to support that statement? And honestly, despite your opinions, with a five year warranty, I'm not worried.
You're right, they have done the math. Professionals don't use warranties because they can't afford downtime. Homeowners don't usually work their tools hard enough to wear them out. They can slap a long warranty on a tool with a so-so lifespan with very little risk.
In the best-case, you have three or four days of downtime for a tool (or battery). Any professional dependent on their tools has some kind of backup. As an occasional photographer, you have backups for everything - batteries, memory cards, lenses that overlap capabilities and even an extra body. The bodies don't tend to fail, but they can certainly be broken. The point is if you're depending on a single tool as a professional and the warranty turn-around determines your ability to work, you're not being very smart. From what I've read (which isn't data either, so it's an impression), most warranty stuff from Milwaukee is a week to two weeks. If you're a pro, have a backup.
I've done a lot of product-management in my career, and most things at this price-level (i.e. not throw-away cheap) benefit from better quality. Warranty repair/replacements are massively expensive, even when you're just doing a swap (the part probably doesn't cost them much, but the shipping is hard-dollars out-of-pocket). Net: having things not come home is the best way to run it. Otherwise you're accruing a lot of $$$ on warranty claims that makes your books ****. And five-year warranties make for a bad scenario if your failure rate is high enough to drive the accrual into "real money" territory. More on that below.
In any case, you don't have any data and neither do I. But I don't think your take on their quality or warranty is accurate.
Their parts availability is also terrible, so any tool that dies outside of warranty becomes a new sale.
Again a zero-data claim. If Milwaukee was really that terrible, people wouldn't be buying their tools a second time/having multiple of their tools. It's fine you like Makita, but you seem to be pulling stuff out of the air...
I agree Milwaukee is definitely running the numbers...."if we use this cheaper gear failure rates go up 5% which will likely cost us X but the cheaper part saves us Y."
That said, what company isn't??
That math works both ways though. In my company, the engineers have a process to bring forward ideas that will increase product cost, but reduce overall costs of the product due to an improvement in the warranty/failure rates and you'd be surprised how much of that makes it into the product. It's because when you add up the full cost of warranty (including things like shipping/etc.) it is the single biggest cost that you have an ability to reduce directly. So it gets a lot of (successful) focus. Obviously there are limits on how much you can spend and get a return, and you can't drive the product costs into a different segment with "quality for the sake of it", but there is a lot more low-hanging fruit than most people realize.
I have no idea if Milwaukee does the same thing, but at five years it would be almost criminally stupid if they didn't. You can't bet on low-utilization by home-owners or pros who are too busy to deal with it. Any error or change in use-rates can devastate your business. (No company is perfect - mistakes/bad decisions happen)
Net: Sometimes you can save dollars by spending nickels or dimes.
I dunno, Milwaukee works great for me as a metalworker (and mechanic on the side). I'm not opposed to Makita, either --- I could have just as easily wound up in that camp.
Me too. I have a pretty positive opinion of Makita overall.
