Interesting question. I have owned new airplanes from Raytheon, Cirrus and now CC. I don't think there is a common theme to how theses issues are handled after warranty.
In my opinion if a product defect is discovered which could impact safety of flight outside of warranty I would like to see the manufacturer at least offer the parts at cost. A product defect that reduces service life or increases service cost but is not a safety of flight issue is normally corrected at the owners expense if the manufacturer offers a fix.
I don't recall a safety of flight product defect event happening during my Cirrus ownership outside of warranty but while I owned a Bonanza, Raytheon covered the cost of parts only associated with safety of flight Service Bulletins. The owner was responsible for labor.
I thought the Raytheon solution was fair. I think Raytheon felt that they wanted to mitigate any potential product liability claims by offering free parts and asking the owners to cover labor. Raytheon also seemed to push the FAA to issue AD's to make sure the airplanes were fixed. Sometimes I think they pushed too hard. Cirrus on the other hand tended to try to get problems fixed before FAA moved to an AD. Situation was a little different at Cirrus since all airplanes carried a 2 year warranty and most owners opted to pay for a 3 year warranty.