Apple Revises Warranty Policies In Europe To Comply With EU Laws 156
ccguy writes "Apple revised its warranty policy in Italy last year after being hit with a €900,000 fine for not complying with an EU-mandated two-year term. The company has today revised the terms of its warranties in France, Germany and Belgium, specifying that customers are entitled to repairs and replacements of their Apple products for a full two years after purchase, and not just one as previously stated. No word yet on when the rest of the EU will see those changes, but it would now seem to be just a matter of time before other countries get the new terms as well."
Once again, misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing that has changed is that Apple makes more clear on the page where they explain their one year manufacturer's warranty, that you have other rights against the seller. If you look at Dell's website for example, there is not the slightest trace of such information, even though Dell doesn't sell through any store, so if you buy a Dell product, then they are _always_ the seller (whereas Apple is sometimes the seller, and Apple stores also sell other company's products, in which case that Apple store also is the seller responsible to handle your legal rights).
Re:Once again, misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's correct. The EU statute applies to the manufacturer, not the seller, and most companies simply provide a two-year warranty that meets or exceeds their obligations under EU statute, rather than train staff on local rules. Apple has gone that route.
You're probably thinking of the Sale of Goods Act which applies in the UK, and which does apply to the seller. There are moves to harmonise the EU rules which would essentially remove the UK statute but I (and the government) think it would be a bad idea. I have more power under the SOGA than the EU rule. (I once used it to very easily get a TV replaced that died 8 months out of the warranty. They called me up and gave me store credit equal to most of its value, to account for depreciation.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is collossally wrong, it does apply to the seller. Where the heck did I pick that up from?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably be reading slashdot posts. It's amazing how many people are qualified lawyers in countries they counldn't even point to on a map.
Of that country.
Re: (Score:2)
Recursion and not being an idiot.
Yes your own warranty is provided by your seller, your seller also bought the product and his warranty is provided by whoever sold it to him. In the end the warranty ends up at the manufactorer.
So while YOUR warranty is through whoever you bought it of, the warranty is ultimately always applied to the manufactorer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the case in the UK; the idea is that sellers are incentivised not to stock and sell crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... they simply jack up the price.
It's always interesting how EU people always complain how expensive stuff is compared to the US. Forgetting of course that their price is inclusive of all taxes and duties (easily 25-50%). And including extended warranty (about 15%, if you want to with the "Best Buy" extended warranties, under 10% if you use something like SquareTrade).
Because that's all that's really happening -
Re: (Score:2)
It's not sudden; it's been the seller's responsibility since more-or-less forever.
Here's the thing though - and I'm using the UK as an example seeing as I live in the UK.
Virtually no retailers - certainly none of the major chains - will honour anything beyond the first 12 months without a fight, and most people know very little about their consumer rights so accept this. Sometimes they won't even honour the manufacturer's warranty, instead pushing the customer to deal directly to the manufacturer.
I don't th
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a builder's brick, you expect that to last 100 years, and that's what the SOGA covers. All these warranties are complete bollocks.
I expect a TV to last a good 5 or 6 years, the SOGA covers that too. They gave you a credit because they had to, not because they're a Nice Shop (tm).
A pair of socks? Maybe they'll last 12 months. Not a problem.
(I know you corrected yourself about manufacturer/retailer)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the second rule here applies:
http://ns.is/ns/upload/files/pdf-skrar/ena/10basicprinsciplesen.pdf [ns.is]
Re:Once again, misleading summary (Score:4, Informative)
Apple often is the retailer of their own products. They were selling people extended warranties that they didn't need because they were already covered.
Re: (Score:2)
No they were not covered. After the first six months you are responsible for proving that it was Apple's fault; with an extended warranty it's Apple that has to prove that it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
No they were not covered. After the first six months you are responsible for proving that it was Apple's fault; with an extended warranty it's Apple that has to prove that it's not.
Not quite. With a usual warranty, like Apples extended warranty, it's basically up to the company to decide what they cover and what not.
You hear quite often about people who where denied a repair under warranty because the maker found some clause in their legalese that excludes that special case.
The mandatory warranty, on the other hand, is defined by law and companies can not as easily weasel out of it.
You are right, though, that only for the first 6 months it is assumed that a defect was there from the s
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, I just meant that you're not covered by the same thing as you would be by buying the extended warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
No they were not covered. After the first six months you are responsible for proving that it was Apple's fault; with an extended warranty it's Apple that has to prove that it's not.
maybe in usa.
In euro land apples products have always(to a limited definition of always) had the two year guarantee(minus perishables but I don't think they ever sold ink.. batteries perhaps). basically it can't break on it's own in two years in use, they always had to comply with that in europe - but it made selling their extended warranty harder so they tried bullshitting that it's just 6 months. that got them flak and for a good reason.
by the way if it has a manufacturing defect apple is on hook for fixi
Re: (Score:2)
by the way if it has a manufacturing defect apple is on hook for fixing it FOREVER! not just 6 months. not just 12 months. forever, because the defect was in the product when they sold it.
On the other hand, if it lasts long enough then it is by definition not defective. (And, by law, six years after the purchase, five years in Scotland, the customer loses all their rights. As an extreme example, you buy a Mac, you leave it in the sealed box, after 6 years and one day you open it in front of witnesses and it is physically broken, you'd get nothing).
Re: (Score:2)
oblig:
"you must be new here"
terms already mandatory in other EU countries (Score:2)
No word yet on when the rest of the EU will see those changes, but it would now seem to be just a matter of time before other countries get the new terms as well.
Nope. the customers in other EU countries already have the same (or very similar) terms. Because these terms are based on laws that are based on EU guidelines. And law trumps whatever Apple says they are willing to do.
The only thing missing is Apple admitting to the customers what rights they have under the law.
Re: (Score:2)
"The new terms" which they refer to are the correct, legally appropriate warranty from Apple, not the EU laws.
Re: (Score:2)
You are by law required to give at least the EU standard for warranty, you can never write your product out of this.
You can provider better warranty, which a lot of business do, but never worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem here is that the word warranty is used differently. Because I know for sure that some EU countries don't have any requirement whatsoever that the seller and/or manufacturer provides warranty. What they require is similar to warranty, but clearly defined as something different from warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
In German we actually have two different words for this: Garantie for the (voluntary) warranty of a seller or manufacturer and GewÃhrleistung for the mandatory warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that sounds more along the lines of what I'm used to.
Re: (Score:2)
...yes?
Re: (Score:2)
You are by law required to give at least the EU standard for warranty, you can never write your product out of this.
As usual, confused and unclear. "You" as the manufacturer can give whatever warranty you want. Obviously giving a longer warranty makes customers happier and makes them trust your products more, but you can give any warranty you like. "You" as the seller (the store) selling a product don't have to give any warranty, but you have to follow the law and make sure the goods you sell are of reasonable quality, and fix them if they fail, according to the law.
Two year term already in effect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EU doesn't have a two year warranty. I was going to explain it, but Udo Schmitz did a much better job if you look a bit further down.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU doesn't have a two year warranty. I was going to explain it, but Udo Schmitz did a much better job if you look a bit further down.
ok and this is how apple explains it. EU-wide Consumer Laws: Claim period: 2 years (minimum) from date of delivery, 5 years in Scotland and 6 years in the rest of the UK.
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com]
He doesn't explain it too well, actually. don't eat so much apple pie.
I buy a product inside eu then someone is going to cover for the two years warranty - the consumer on these issues should always be able take the issue with the entity that sold the product to them. that's just logical and
Uhm, nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any of you wonder why the text reading “revised the terms of its warranties in France, Germany and Belgium” links to an article that instead says: “Apple has updated its policies”? And why said article doesn’t link to those policies but instead (for Germany at least) links not to a promised PDF but an article at ifun.de?
http://www.ifun.de/apple-kommuniziert-gewaehrleistungsanspruch-deutlicher-41275/ [www.ifun.de]
In which is stated that Apple adds this paragraph to its product pages in the Apple Store:
“In Deutschland haben Verbraucher gemäß BGB innerhalb von zwei Jahren ab Übergang der Ware Anspruch auf eine kostenlose Reparatur, einen kostenlosen Austausch, einen Rabatt oder eine Rückzahlung durch den Händler, wenn das gekaufte Produkt zum Zeitpunkt des Übergangs nicht dem Kaufvertrag entspricht.”
My human translation: “In Germany—according to BGB [Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch/civil code]— customers have the right, within tow years of transfer of the goods, of free repair, free replacement, a rebate or repayment by the vendor, if the purchased product does not comply with the terms of the purchase contract at the date of transfer.”
They do this because with the Apple Store (be it online or brick and mortar) they are the vendor. This, EU-mandated, german warranty applies to the vendor. If you buy an Apple product at Random-Computer-Hütte and it breaks within one year you can either call the manufacturer Apple upon their 1-year warranty or go to the vendor. If it breaks after a year but within two years you’ll have to deal with that vendor. If you buy at an Apple-run store manufacturer and vendor are the same. And if it breaks after two years you could use Apple-care if you bought it.
Still, Apples warranty gives better protection. With the EU-warranty, if the product breaks after 6 months the burden of proof that the product did not comply with the terms of the purchase contract when you bought it, is on your side. And if you buy AppleCare you not only get Apple warranty for three years instead of one, but free phone support on top of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Belgium, and my first year warranty came up on Monday this week for my MacBookPro Retina. I came very close to buying AppleCare, but I baulked at the cost at the last moment (340 Euro). With this new ruling, I'm glad I gave it a miss, if it only gives me 1 additional year of coverage, and free support calls that I won't use anyway...
Having said that, I've had quite
Re: (Score:2)
that 6 months applies only in some countries and it's about you having received the thing as broken.
why use some obscure german article for trying to explain an eu wide issue? so that apple would seem less full of shit trying to convince people that their mandatory warranty was just 6 months to sell them more? hell, why not just link to apple who explains that the warranty is two years in eu: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com] - and you need to contact the seller to claim it which is normal(
Only 1 or 2 years? (Score:2)
Isn't that sort of short for a PC?
America: We want that here! (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
When Apple was fined for this, lot of Apple fans at Slashdot said that Apple will withdraw their products from sale in Europe. Then all of Europe's citizen's will rise in revolt to get European countries to change their laws so that Apple can sell their products with whatever warranty Apple deems fit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That is interesting. Does that mean that the Reality Distortion Field is limited in time? Or does every new Apple product have its own RDF that can't overlap and if that is the case, why do the newer one have priority?
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:4, Interesting)
No he is right. I bought a mac pro in 2008. I hoped it would last 5 years, so than the price was okay. But ever yyear it would break down once or twice. And the applecare only lasted for 3 years. After 3 years they put in a new motherboard (new is relative, it was made in 2008), the nvidia blew it self up twice, after overheating. And the power supply broke down 3 times. Instead of putting in a new better one, the always put one in, that was build in 2008, even 3 years later. And the repairs only lasted for 6 months, than I could come back.
So now that mac pro is laying somewhere, and I won't ever buy another piece of shit hardware from apple ever again.
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:5, Funny)
You are buying them wrong
Re: (Score:2)
No he is right. I bought a mac pro in 2008. I hoped it would last 5 years, so than the price was okay. But ever yyear it would break down once or twice. And the applecare only lasted for 3 years. After 3 years they put in a new motherboard (new is relative, it was made in 2008), the nvidia blew it self up twice, after overheating. And the power supply broke down 3 times. Instead of putting in a new better one, the always put one in, that was build in 2008, even 3 years later. And the repairs only lasted for 6 months, than I could come back.
So now that mac pro is laying somewhere, and I won't ever buy another piece of shit hardware from apple ever again.
And my anecdotal evidence: I still use the original generation MacBook I bought in late 2006 every day. Only the optical drive has stopped working.
Re: (Score:2)
That is interesting. Does that mean that the Reality Distortion Field is limited in time? Or does every new Apple product have its own RDF that can't overlap and if that is the case, why do the newer one have priority?
No, he means that Apple is trying hard to sell you a warranty extension so that they are sure to be forced to replace your machine when (not if) your machine dies after a year. Or so Apple Hater logic goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not totally familiar with the law in Italy, but if it follows the same type of law that is common in the EU then it is not warranty per se. It usually means that if something breaks the vendor has the responsibility to fix it _or_ prove that the problem was not caused by the vendor. That is very different from how most warranties work.
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:4, Informative)
It runs like this: For two years, the vendor (not the manufacturer) has to warrant that the sold object keeps running except for normal tear and wear and the usual refills. The problem is that within the two years, the buyer can misuse the object in a way which causes the object to break preliminary. Thus there arises the necessity to determine who is responsible if the sold object breaks. The law states, that within the first six month, it's assumed that the fault causing the preliminary break was already present at the time of the sale, except proved otherwise (thus the vendor has to prove that the buyer mistreated the object). Within the remaining 18 month, it is assumed that the buyer mistreated the object, thus the buyer has to prove that the object was faulty at the time of the sale.
If the responsibility of the preliminary defect is put to the vendor (either by default within the first six month, or by proof of the buyer), the sale can be reversed, thus either the vendor hands back the money, or replaces the defective object with another one. The vendor still can ask for a repair attempt, but it's up to the buyer to agree.
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:4, Informative)
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
That's exactly correct, but unfortunately much too complicated for most people who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line, and are just incapable of describing a legal situation correctly without muddling everything up.
So the problem in Italy was: When you sell products, you don't usually have to tell people all about their rights; they are supposed to figure that out themselves. BUT if you sell extended warranties, or insurance, or similar things, then you have to tell people exactly what they are getting for their money. And to tell them exactly what they are getting, you must tell them what rights they would have without extended warranty or insurance, what rights they would have with extended warranty or insurance, and what they get for their money is the difference. (Actually, what they get is slightly more; AppleCare will fix problems if the seller goes bankrupt, if you move to a different country, or if the seller is some bastard who won't fix the problem without going to court, even though they legally have to).
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth pointing out though that most judges will side with the consumer if the item has not been obviously abused or mis-used. A recent example is a company selling leather sofas in the UK. They claimed that certain common hair care products could damage the leather, but since a reasonable person would expect their sofa to cope with those it became the vendor's problem and they had to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I noticed about people buying Apple products. Unlike the common stereotype here on slashdot (fanboy changing their stuff every time Apple makes a keynote) they are mostly people that will keep their hardware for a few years. The only people I have seen changing more often are iPhone contract users, but the replacements are pushed by mobile networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Their products only last a year, by then you would be two versions behind and obsolete.
That's a good thing. If they have to replace yours under warranty you might get a newer model.
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not glued, the lifespan is more than 2 years, and nothing takes 6 months to get from factory to consumer in the mobile phone business.
Re: (Score:2)
Battery life depends on how you use the device. Some people will stay on the same battery for a few years, others can wear theirs out in one. For example li-po cells have a limited number of recharge cycles which is extended if you charge them slowly and rarely drop below 50%.
I replaced by GS3 battery last month. The old one was mostly fine but I found that if I pushed it hard during the day it would need a top-up by late evening, so I shelled out all of £8 for a genuine replacement. I wouldn't
Re: (Score:3)
So if they are not glued then why are they not offering battery replacement?
They offer battery replacement [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's quicker to hand you a phone that's had its battery replaced already, than have you wait while they swap the battery out. I hear that they're going to switch over to while-you-wait though, it's a really trivial job on the 4 and 4S, and if you don't bother unplugging the display it's even quicker on the 5.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice, I am glad they are doing something for you Apple guys. Ive watched a number of friends carrying around auxiliary plug in batteries due to the primary one not being able to hold a charge for very long.
I can change the battery in my phone whenever I please, in fact the dock came with an extra battery to swap in. FYI thats the Samsung Charge.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you rate, e.g., the Galaxy S4 as low to mid-end?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they'd gone sealed this generation! Nice. I must've been thinking of HTC.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they stick with it for the 'S5'. I have the Nexus 4, which is sealed, and miss the replaceable battery and uSD card of my previous phone (though to be fair, the N4 battery life is just about good enough to get me through the day without fishing out the clunky external battery I thought I'd need more often).
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire). The fact that it's still working for you doesn't mean a thing. My mother-in-law still has a Galaxy S1, which does what she needs and is just a bit too slow for my tastes, though I'm a power user.
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:4, Informative)
The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire).
How can something be obsolete after a few months if it's expected to be around for years?
The fact that it's still working for you doesn't mean a thing. My mother-in-law still has a Galaxy S1, which does what she needs and is just a bit too slow for my tastes, though I'm a power user.
Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates? Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?
Re:Thats a problem for apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire).
How can something be obsolete after a few months if it's expected to be around for years?
That's how people wit performance mania think, the cheesy car analogy would be: If you buy a Mercedes today and BMW comes out with a model tomorrow that has 16 more horsepowers your Mercedes is hopelessly obsolete and you have to upgrade ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked the average Apple buyer was more susceptible to "upgrade mania". Except that, in fact, they don't get the top-of-the-line hardware they were expecting. And that at a premium.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly did you check that? Or did you in fact pull it out of your ass?
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked the average Apple buyer was more susceptible to "upgrade mania". Except that, in fact, they don't get the top-of-the-line hardware they were expecting. And that at a premium.
Buying a phone is about more than performance and top-of-the-line hardware. I have yet to experience Apple orphaning a product before the warranty period expires, I have seen Android device vendors do that. I'll gladly buy an iPhone with hardware that's 6 months out of date because my previous experience with Apple has taught me that I'll get at least 3 if not 4 years of guaranteed OS updates and like most of the other 'Apple fanboys' I know, I actually intend to use the phone for 3-4 years before upgrading
Re: Thats a problem for apple (Score:2)
That is completely irrelevant and an argument that's unheard of for systems where you can replace the software, like PC's. Of course, none of Apple's products really fall in that category. Fortunately many Android phones do, which is why they have such great third party ROM support and communities surrounding the scene.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Yes.
You don't need Samsung to hold your hand to install the latest Android on a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need Samsung to hold your hand to install the latest Android on a phone.
You need SOMEONE to build a ROM for a particular phone. And if Samsung doesn't do it, you're just hoping for some random amateur that you don't know to do it. And you'll download it from some web-site that says Flash at Your Own Risk. And then you'll have to go through some arcane process to actually do it.
Here's the thing, virtually no one does it. The most numerous version of Android in the wild is a version dating from 2010.
The most numerous version of iOS is always the latest. That's because they actua
Re: (Score:3)
Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates? Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?
To a similar extent that Apple does, yes. Allow me to explain.
If you install iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 you don't get all the features. A lot of stuff just doesn't work, it needs certain hardware or a faster CPU or something.
Similarly with a Galaxy S you don't get all the latest Android features, you get a subset via updates to Google's apps. When they update Maps or Gmail you get those updates. You also get updates to Samsung apps, including their desktop suite (equivalent of iTunes).
So yes, the Galaxy S is stil
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. That's a good explanation.
But just to be clear, is it just regular app updates or will for example the kernel be updated if a root exploit is found?
Re: (Score:3)
You're wholly dependent upon the forward compatibility of the underlying OS for those updated apps to be available, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Just as an example here, the Galaxy S has Android 2.3 at best, assuming the carrier authorised it; that means that none of the APIs outlined here [android.com] are included, and apps which use those APIs (or which expect changes in behavior in existing APIs) may not operate properly. Given that most Android handsets are still on 2.x, develoeprs have wisely stepped carefully in implementing the 4.x APIs of course, but it will be an issue in future. (Current releases of many apps misbehave when running on the original iPho
Re: (Score:2)
Or to put it another way, this is the list of features I don't get in iOS7. Everything else will be updated.
Panorama format is available on iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, and iPod touch (5th generation).
Filters in Camera are available on iPhone 5 and iPod touch (5th generation).*
AirDrop is available on iPhone 5, iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and iPod touch (5th generation)
Siri is available on iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad with Retina display, iPad mini, and iPod touch (5th generation) and requires Internet access.
*Fi
Re: (Score:3)
if it's expected to be around for years?
maybe the users think it should be. But apple wants users to buy as many as possible.
A way to achieve this is perceived obsolescence. --> apple releases as many new versions as it can get away with (so users are pushed to perceive their only one year old device as 'old').
(it isn't only apple that does it)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe the users think it should be. But apple wants users to buy as many as possible.
A way to achieve this is perceived obsolescence. --> apple releases as many new versions as it can get away with (so users are pushed to perceive their only one year old device as 'old').
(it isn't only apple that does it)
As many versions as it can get away with? Apple hardy releases new stuff at all. Are we talking about the same Apple that merely releases a new phone per year? It was 16 months between the iPhone 4 and 4S. The same Apple that has supported the iPhone 3GS with the latest version of iOS for four years?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious as to what all these other phones are. The Desire was on parity at best at a bit behind otherwise, and the Galaxy S didn't show up until later. I'm on the latest OS release, unlike your mother in law.
Re: (Score:2)
That's cute. The Desire was released months before the iPhone 4 and the Galaxy S1 was released a few weeks before the iPhone 4. At least get your facts straight.
Oh, and my mother-in-law's phone is running Android 4.1
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a software engineer and I still have a Galaxy S1 (running jelly bean).
It's fine, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was an awesome phone and I nearly got one instead of the iPhone 4. In hindsight the software situation worked out much better (which is why I went with the iPhone in the end) but it was very appealing in the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already
So those phones were also already obsolete? Do you even know what obsolete means?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, fine, but don't forget that many of the cool new features don't work on the iPhone 4. You are not much better off than someone who just gets new features via app updates for their older Android device.
My friend is still using his Galaxy S which is of about the same vintage as your iPhone, a bit older perhaps. Still gets feature updates, still happy with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got most of the new features; no voice navigation, Siri or panoramas but that's it. Being on the latest OS release for app compatability is the more important thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If a feature requires certain hardware or the hardware is not capable or powerful enough to support it then you just can't support that feature. There's no way around that. The iPhone 4 started out with iOS 4, and will be supported at least up until iOS 7. A lot has changed from iOS 4 to iOS 7, and it's honorable that Apple has supported it so well. Of course some features may not be supported, but that list is very short and most items on it has a good reason for being there.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure turn-by-turn and Siri were just them looking to give the newer products a selling point, though.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Manufacturers differentiate products on the basis of technically trivial differences all the time...
Yep, a lot of the new features don't really need better hardware. But that's consumer electronics. If you don't like it, either hack it yourself or wait for somebody else to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm still using the iPhone 4 I bought in 2010, and am looking forward to the big iOS7 UI overhaul to take it through year 4. A relative of mine
Still? I'm still using my Nokia from 96 or thereabouts. Works fine, not with the original battare though.
Re: (Score:2)
Pheasants...
I'm still using my CB Radio.
Re: (Score:2)
He got sick of dealing with jailbreaks and went to several other phones before finally getting a Nexus this year, like he should've done in the first place. At any rate the Desire hasn't had a stable Cyanogen release since last June. Meanwhile I've got at least another 18 months left until iOS8 comes around and there's the possibility of obsolecence, and if my wife's original iPhone is any indication, two years after that before app incompatibility becomes a serious issue.
Half a decade isn't bad for a smart
Re: (Score:3)
While it's nice and all, upgrades aren't mandatory or related to warranties on the hardware.
If the phone is still as capable as it was when sold then it's fine.
It's not just a phone. It's a network connected computer and should not be used or at least not connected to any form of network if it's no longer supported and receives security updates.
The problem was that a significant number (enough for the EU govenerment, AKA 27 goverments, to take notice) of Apple devices couldn't make it to the 2 year limit required by law.
You can spin it however you like but that fact remains.
Apple choose to ignore the law as they didn't want to support people after a year (speaks highly of their confidence in the hardware) and they got burnt.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the problem was not that they don't support their hardware accordingly to the law, the problem was that they were not good enough at informing customers about it.
Re:If they said it was supported for one year (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that Apple acts as both the manufacturer and the seller if you buy from Apple Store (online or retail). As a manufacturer Apple provides a one year warranty and still do so, that was never the issue.
Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.
However as a seller Apple also is responsible for hardware defects, and this is something that they have to do for two years; but only if you actually bought from them. If you bought from a reseller then it's the reseller that has that responsibility. That responsibility is very limited in comparison to a traditional warranty and as a customer you essentially has to prove that the defect was the result of manufacturing. As a seller you are also responsible for explaining this to the customer.
Wrong. A seller may provide an additional warranty beyond the legally required manufacturer's warranty. That in no way alters the manufacturer's duty under EU law to provide a 2 year warranty.
Apple did not explain this well enough to customers, and that was what the problem was all about.
Wrong. The problem was that Apple (the manufacturer) does not provide a manufacturer's warranty of 2 years as required by EU law. They insisted it should only be 1 year, in flagrant defiance of the EU laws. The fine they received was a minor wrist slap, but would probably have been repeated in heavier increments if their illegal stance had continued.
Re: (Score:3)
Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.
Nonsense. It applies to sellers.
In the case of Apple, the manufacturer is a big and world wide known company. But in reality, most products are built by companies that you have never heard of, and that you would never be able to contact. If I go to the local supermarket and buy some electronic goods, made in China by god-knows-who, a manufacturer's warranty would be completely useless to me, because my chances of getting things fixed by a company somewhere in Shanghai are practically zero. Instead, I go
Re:If they said it was supported for one year (Score:5, Informative)
Monkey spunk. Your contract is with the seller, not with any of his suppliers, subcontractors etc.
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/consumer_topics/buying_goods_services_en.htm [europa.eu]
"Always try to contact the seller first: under your 2-year guarantee, the seller is liable if the product turns out to be faulty or not as advertised. "
I do hope you're not a practicing lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you seriously suggesting that a US based manufacturer has to provide this warranty if a EU based retailer resells their products?
It doesn't matter. They've got their own store-fronts that operate in the EU (both online and physical), they're explicitly selling to EU consumers, they specifically invoice within the EU too. The location of the head office and the factories isn't too important; EU law applies because of all the other factors. (In particular, the 2 year guarantee is because that is what is considered to be the amount that can be expected from a computing device costing those sorts of amounts, and EU consumer law doesn't a
Re: (Score:2)
It applies to the manufacturer.
No, it doesn't, where the hell did you get that idea from? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML [europa.eu]
Article 5
Time limits
1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
It is very simple: If you, as a customer, buys an electronic device in the EU, and it malfunctions within 2 years, you are entitled to a free repair or replacement. There is no discussion possible. The store you bought it from has to take care of it, whether it is the manufacturer itself or some reseller. Its their problem.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all in response to "Their products only last a year, by then you would be two versions behind and obsolete."
Re: (Score:2)
Put the phone on your desk/shelf like your dell/g3/tv/speakers/vcr, and it will work just as well as they do.
Carry it with you everywhere, subject to your own clumsiness, and it won't.
Re: (Score:2)
If he'd root his device he could still use modern Android on it, at least version 4 or higher.
Try doing that with your iPhone when Apple bitchslaps you and drop iOS support for it.
Considering what these smartphones cost you'd think one could expect 4 years of OS updates without having to root/jailbreak the device. Say what you will about Apple and it's walled garden, they don't orphan devices often. With the iPhone line they have provided 3-4 years of OS updates. My mum uses an iPhone 3GS bought in 2009 that is only now, 4 years later, being dropped from Apple's official OS update list.
Re: (Score:2)
If he'd root his device he could still use modern Android on it, at least version 4 or higher.
Yeah, right. c`t magazine recently reported that Samsung refused repairs under warranty because of an "unsupported OS". And that was actually an update coming from Samsung itself. http://www.heise.de/ct/inhalt/2013/12/68/ [heise.de] (in German behind a paywall)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
B*****m
Language!
Re: (Score:2)
2 years (minimum) from date of delivery, 5 years in Scotland and 6 years in the rest of the UK"
"Claim period" is the time where you can make a claim. So if the seller was supposed to fix problems that happened in the first two years, and your computer breaks after 23 months, and you claim two months later, they still have to fix it. If you claim 5 years and 11 months later, they still have to fix it. Except you have to prove that it broke within the first two years, and prove that it was the manufacturer's fault and not yours, which after almost six years might be difficult.
Since the time that goo
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to. They have the choice of whether or not to sell in Europe.