I personally like the URC line of products. Their remotes certainly feel nice and are ergonomically well designed, although they do feel a little on the light side. The trade in policy that URC uses is probable the only way to do business in a tough global economy.
The policy does come at a price though for both URC and the end user. I'm sure URC is just breaking even on damaged exchanges. It's not worth it for them. I suppose they do it to keep the end user loyal. I'm not sure this works for the end user, when you have to shell out almost 1/2 the cost of a new remote.
I had my MX-5000 break and I fixed it myself. It was probable my fault from excess programming and over use of the USB port. After taking the remote apart, I got to see what a $1200.00 remote looks like. It's fragile to say the least. I'm sure the $1200.00 doesn't go into R&D drop testing the remote.
Should remotes be dropped? NO! Do they get dropped? Yes! Should they be sat on after left in the couch? NO! Do they get sat on? Yes! . I have a suggestion for URC and other remote companies. Fill them with an epoxy just like the automotive industry does with ECU's. The cost will be minimal but will be recouped on service calls. If a unit does fail, it will be unserviceable. It will save URC money on returns and service calls because there will be less of them. The epoxy will add to the minimum weight, which could be also viewed as a good thing.
5 cents per unit could go a long way........................
But what do I know? I do know that I've seen epoxy filled electronics flying through the air at 100+ MPH and work again and again! Why can't manufactures make a remote that can fall 2 ft off a couch? I'd gladly spend $1200.05 for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!