To what extent is a company obligated to provide high quality products, even those not explicitly under warranty? After 6 months of general use (taking it in and out of my backpack, placing it on the coffee table, typing, etc.) the screen cracked. The location of the crack and lack of physical damage elsewhere on the computer (the frame isn't bent or scratch) prove the computer was not dropped or mishandled in any way. The screen was made of glass incapable of withstanding general use, and Microsoft is unwilling to replace a defective product because of the type of malfunction it had. A screen crack, regardless of how it occurred, is not a type of breakage their warranty covers, yet they made a screen of a material so fragile it can crack under the lightest of strain.Is the fact that Microsoft can choose which types of breakages are covered under their warranty policy in conjunction with their ability to make the screen of any material they choose a reasonable action to take? Is it wrong for a consumer to assume a laptop can withstand the kind of use I described early? If a company provides a product that is incapable  of taking the routine stress that product can reasonably be assumed to be under, should that company be responsible for warning the purchaser prior to purchase of this fragility or be obligated to repair damage to the product caused through routine use? A tire manufacturer would be expected to replace a tire that disintegrated when traveling at 60 mph. A customer would expect a glass top stove to withstand the stress put on the glass surface by a pot of boiling water. I expected a laptop to be durable enough to withstand routine use and transportation. The Microsoft Surface Laptop 3, cannot withstand such use. Microsoft might have saved money by using inferior materials and not replacing those materials when they failed, but they have just lost a longtime customer.