Apple Sued By Belgian Consumer Association For Not Applying EU Warranty Laws 290
An anonymous reader writes "Following the recent Italian case, Apple is now being sued by the Belgian consumer association 'Test-Achats' (french/dutch website) for not applying the EU consumer protection laws by only giving a one-year warranty on its products. At the same time, Apple is not only refusing to give the mandatory two-year warranty but is also selling the additional year of warranty with its Applecare products. If the consumer association wins its case, Apple could be forced to refund Applecare contracts to its Belgian customers while providing the additional year of warranty for free."
So wait . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So wait . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So wait . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah. They probably just charge more in the EU to cover the extra year of warranty.
Doesn't work like that. Products are sold based on what the customers are willing to pay, not based on the underlying cost of the product. So unless the extra year of warranty significantly changes what customers are willing to pay, the prices will stay the same.
Re:So wait . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Customers are willing to pay their own kidneys for apple products. Maybe they'll toss in an extra spleen too.
Re: (Score:3)
Customers are willing to pay their own kidneys for apple products. Maybe they'll toss in an extra spleen too.
I'm an android fanboi you insensitive clod. Apple will get nothing but bile from me.
Re:So wait . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Customers are willing to pay their own kidneys for apple products. Maybe they'll toss in an extra spleen too.
If Apple thought that their customers would pay an extra spleen don't you think they'd be charging it already?
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple thought that their customers would pay an extra spleen don't you think they'd be charging it already?
That's what the extended warranty and accessories are for. People with a spare spleen burning a hole in their abdomen have a wide range of supplementary Apple products to chose from.
They could wait the outcome of the case (Score:3)
but yeah, I think they would.
They could even redirect some of the ire unto the law and government itself by simply stating that now all new Apple products come with three years Applecare. There are all sorts of marketing buzzwords and such that they can and will employ. Then you can turn around and watch forums erupt with people complaining about the cost up against those who say "its for your best interest" and like ... and eventually everyone will just accept the new base price.
Re: (Score:3)
Sales tax. Look it up. U.S. prices are usually given without, consumer prices in Europe usually with.
Re:So wait . . . (Score:5, Informative)
If they lose, basically all they have is a free loan for the amount of the Applecare contracts that they have to refund? No fine or anything? I'm surprised more people aren't trying to get away with it.
Modified that a bit there. Indeed, the worst case scenario is that you get to take people's money and effectively get an interest-free loan if you have to give it back. Assuming that a lot of people don't apply for the refund, there's that too. Best case scenario is you get away with it if you don't get sued.
So yeah, where's the deterrent?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So wait . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Generally speaking in most EU countries the law is restorative, i.e. it aims to put things back as they would otherwise have been. Hence there is usually not a punitive fine unless the regulator imposes, which I'd say is a distinct possibility in this case.
Also we usually don't have to apply for this type of refund, it will be automatic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why fines don't work. They need to be severe enough to factor in the profit motive.
Let's say a tech company made a laptop without a certain safety device in it and violated EU regs as a result. They are fined 110% of the profits they made from that product while it was violating regulations (so it isn't even economical to say "at least it evened out at cost" - it's a measurable loss). Get fines like that in corporate law and this shit will stop post haste.
tl;dr fines don't actually lose a company en
Re:So wait . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a Belgian one, but as far as I understand this is a civil case. In civil cases, the rules for evidence are much more lenient compared to criminal cases (eg less formal requirements and preponderance of evidence compared to very strict evidence rules and a full burden of proof on the accuser). For that reason, the outcome of civil suits is compensation and restoration, not punishment.
If you think civil cases should result in punitive sanctions, think about American music industry. They (ab)use the civil court system to sue infringers, threatening with statutory punitive damages. In (most of?) the EU, you can sue for copyright infringement, but the maximum damages are the actual and provable damages caused by the sued party.
Or did you want punitive damages only for the "bad guys"... that would make for some interesting legislation :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Test-Achats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfurtunately there are too many f*ckwits who believe everything they are told by the 1%-ers ["giving good warranties would be bad for big companies which means it would be bad for Americans"] and only vote on the basis of whether their candidate supports killing live people (AKA "execution") or unborn entities (AKA "abortion") or how the candidate thinks that life was created (or evolved)
Re:Test-Achats (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't differentiate fetus from new born or infant for any definition of moral agent and therefore person.
Of course you can differentiate, what you can't do is tell precisely in practice when an embryo crosses that definitional line from blob of cells through fetus into (in your words) moral agent. So I can say that I believe 24 weeks is too late for abortion, and that 4 weeks is definitely okay but inbetween gets tricky depending on your definition of "moral agent". Of course religious folk who believe that "moral agency" begins at conception due to the existence of a a "soul" are begging the question since they assume that moral agency is a property of something that isn't physically detectable in even an adult human. I have great sympathy for those who believe that abortion is murder, it must be awful to believe that. However if it wasn't for religion there could be a useful ongoing debate in society about what constitutes humanness and the obligations that might put on a pregnant woman. There might also be far more done to help women avoid being pregnant in the first place. Imagine a world in which medical science makes it impossible for a woman to be pregnant against her conscious sound informed will. Might not society's expectation of her attitude towards abortion be stricter than I think it should be today? However to move towards such a world requires acknowledging pregnancy avoidance as a legitimate goal of sexually active women and of their right to be sexually active in the first place!
Also a debate about humanness might also inform the debate about death and what it is to say that "a person is dead", something that is also not universally agreed upon.
snake
Re:Test-Achats (Score:4, Informative)
I think we need something here in australia too. I've had a long running dispute with apple for "cancelling" my one year warranty over what it claims is water damage (but was confirmed by a third party repairer to not be water damage at all) , when australian law is really specific that you cant actually cancel warranty unless damage is *caused* by user misuse. The govt body in charge of such things here has acknowledged that I'm in the right after investigating but pretty much said they'd probably need a bunch more cases to be worth taking them to court over it.
Also they by law have to sell end users spare-parts once the warranty has ended, but they dont, and thats a big no-no.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Try making at the Small Claim tribunal or court of your state.
More information here:
http://www.abio.org.au/abioweb/ABIOWebSite.nsf/0/77d81e601100bb8eca256d56004279d9?OpenDocument
Re:Test-Achats (Score:5, Informative)
I remember this consumer group did this thing for the first iPhone after a rash of complaints where Apple rejected warranty claims, citing water damage. In an attempt to prove that rejecting claims based on faulty sensors, they bought a new iPhone from an Apple store on a day with near 100% humidity. When they cracked it open, the moisture-sensitive tabs were already triggered.
I can't find the exact same story, but here's something that covered pretty much the same thing. http://consumerist.com/2010/08/can-high-humidity-void-your-iphones-warranty.html [consumerist.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Better Business Bureau has a small amount of clout, but is a membership agency; moreover, membership is not compulsory. There are other mmebership agencies that do similar things for its members, that are proprietary to certain functions: Automobile Association of America (AAA, or "Triple A") does things along the lines of hotels, mechanics, that sort of thing, that are held to certain standards (members join for roadside assistance benefits and discounts, among other things; b
Re:If wishes were horses (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is supposed to ensure that when you spend £150 on something, it is supposed to work for at least 2 years (excluding anything you do to break it). That is not an unreasonable expectation. Any company that is unable to promise that their high-end electrical products will last for 24 months really don't deserve any sympathy.That is already quite a low expectation of build quality.
You might have a point if you're talking about throw-away cheap electronics which you don't need to last 2 years; but Apple certainly don't fall into that category.
Re: (Score:2)
My brother recient had a $1500NZD dell laptop fail after 15 months, he called dell and they said (paraaphrase) unlucky buddy that only has a 12 month warranty. He called the consumer protection agency (New Zealand consumer watchdog), they said someone can "reasonably expect" a laptop to last longer then 15months and essentially ordered dell to repair or repplace the laptop.
So they replaced the failed motheroard and all was well with the orld
Re: (Score:2)
reciently
It's not your keyboards' fault ;)
Seriously though, your brother was lucky Dell listened to the agency. Usually when such situations arise your only recourse is to go to court, which usually costs more than the product's value (even when you get legal expenses paid).
Re:If wishes were horses (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally UK citizens have additional rights. Anything over £100 paid for on credit card makes the credit card provider liable as if you you had bought it from them, meaning you can always pursue them for warranty claims or a refund even if the retailer goes bust. In fact you don't need to even pay £100 on the card, the item simply has to cost over £100, i.e. you could pay £99.99 in cash and 1p by card and still be covered. Some women are now getting faulty breast implant refunds this way after having paid small deposits on card.
We also have the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) which says that goods must last a "reasonable length of time", which for things like computers and TVs is considered to be around six years. If the device fails before that time you are entitled to a partial refund based on how much use you had out of it, or of course the retailer can choose to replace the item.
It is also worth noting that your warranty is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. Of course Apple is both in this case, but it is worth remembering as many manufacturers try to fob customers off with "contact the manufacturer" when in fact they are required to handle the whole process.
Re:If wishes were horses (Score:5, Informative)
You don't even grasp the slightest bit of that law (and thus you are the one with the magical thinking).
It goes like this: For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale.
So nowhere this law assumes that products are faultfree for at least two years.
But AppleCare's warranties cover, what is already mandated by law, and the law requires that all warranties have to inform the prospective buyer about the legal protection he already has. And this is ommitted by AppleCare, thus it fraudulently sold a product to the buyer the buyer didn't really need.
Re: (Score:3)
For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale.
So nowhere this law assumes that products are faultfree for at least two years.
What you are forgetting is that in civil matters such as this the burden of proof is the "balance of probabilities". In practical terms that means that unless there is a dent in it then any court is going to side with the consumer who says that the product stopped working during normal use. There mere fact that the product is undamaged (aside from normal wear) is enough, and failure is deemed to be because of poor quality or workmanship.
So yes, the law does assume that products must be fault free for two ye
Re: (Score:2)
No. The law just requires that products have to be faultfree at the time of the sale, and it assumes, that goods which within the first six month are flawed already at the time of the sale. It further gives consumers the chance to prove that products that fail within the first two years were flawed from the begin and gives them the right to a replacement or a refund, if they are able to prove it.
The "balance of probabilities" you quote and you base your argument on is not part of the law. It is up to the co
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If wishes were horses (Score:4, Informative)
If only there was some way to measure the value added to a product and tax it...
Re: (Score:2)
1. Shops are in historical centers, making them more expensive to run and rent, so profit margins must be higher,
2. People who sell it earn more than in US, and they have full health coverage and a pension plan included. So the overhead is more. The same accounts for all the middleman on European soil (truck driver, shop assistant, logistic operator, ....)
All in all, it is not a given deal if Apple itself has more profit on the 399 Euro as opposed to the 399$ Note also that on a
Re: (Score:2)
I also missed the bit where is 399EU for the old iPad 2 and 399US for the "new" iPad.
If you compare Australia and USA, they both have new iPads, its $429AU which is around $450US. Here in NZ we pay $475US for the iPad 2. It would be cheaper to have an American friend buy one and send it via courier.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing to consider is that US prices are usually quoted exclusive of sales tax while EU prices (on consumer orientated sites) are usually quoted inclusive of VAT. In my experiance this usually accounts for some but not all of the price difference between EU and US headline prices.
Re: (Score:2)
What a load. The OP is talking about online prices. Open the Apple store and EU products are 30% more expensive. Don't tell me that the shipping in the EU is 30% of the retail price because shipping is charged separately. Apple has mandatory prices for the iDevices.
Also, the historical center argument is void as well, because by your reasoning all US products would be far more expensive in the EU. Guess what. Prices are quite equal.
Then your other argument is also untrue. People cost about the same but a hi
Re: (Score:3)
EU still sticks to dictating what people and companies can do within it's own borders. Meanwhile, the US is trying to dictate laws to the entire world.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read the Directive? If repairing imposes "disproportionate costs" on the seller, he can just give the money back.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML [europa.eu]
EU wide? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the consumer association wins it's case, Apple could be forced to refund Applecare contracts to it's Belgian customers while providing the additional year of warranty for free.
Wouldn't they have to honour it in all of the EU, being EU law..?
I'm rather surprised they have been getting away with this, as it is. I thought EU was pretty strict with consumer rights, and would deal with it directly (as opposed to this independent organisation suing). Hrmm...
Re:EU wide? (Score:4, Informative)
They do. Consumer protection associations all over the EU are working on it in pretty much every member country.
However, the EU only decides on directives, to put these into law, each member country has to write their own law to comply with their own constitution and other legal principles separately. Therefore to stop such an infringement, every country has to have its own lawsuit or other compliance process to rectify transgressions against a EU decision.
Re:EU wide? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't they have to honour it in all of the EU, being EU law..?
As far as I know, most "EU law" is actually EU guidelines that are put into national laws by the member states. So the member states will have very similar laws, but it's not a single law that is applied to the entire EU.
In the case of Apple's warranty, there was an item about this yesterday in a Dutch consumer rights TV program (Radar). They said there was a lawsuit in Italy about this exact same issue and Apple lost there. So it's likely Apple will lose similar suits in other EU countries, but separate lawsuits are needed for each country.
Re:EU wide? (Score:5, Funny)
As far as I know, most "EU law" is actually EU guidelines that are put into national laws by the member states.
Was I correct to read that in a pirate voice?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, most "EU law" is actually EU guidelines that are put into national laws by the member states. So the member states will have very similar laws, but it's not a single law that is applied to the entire EU.
A guideline is voluntary, EU directives most certainly not. A few choice quotes from the WP page:
A directive is a legislative act of the European Union, which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. (...) If a member state fails to pass the required national legislation, or if the national legislation does not adequately comply with the requirements of the directive, the European Commission may initiate legal action against the member state in the European Court of Justice. (...) Also, in Francovich v. Italy, the court found that member states could be liable to pay damages to individuals and companies who had been adversely affected by the non-implementation of a directive.
Basically the national governments are rubber stamping it, it's just so that the same law can exist in different legal systems and to keep up the illusion of sovereignty. It may take a court case in each country but the EU requirements won't differ.
They haven't gotten away with it (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't that Apple has been getting away with it, if you insist, Apple folds pretty damn quickly, the problem is that you got to fight them. Sony tried to pull a similar stunt with the PSP and its lousy display with lots of dead pixels, Holland was the only place in the world where Sony officially agreed to replace any PSP with any malfunctioning sub-pixel. If you insisted yourself in a shop in another country you would probably have had it replaced BUT the law states that this should be the norm, not just for the customer who insists on his rights.
Apple is one of the worsed performers in this area, they have no problem charging far higher prices in the EU for the supposed thougher regulation but then try to withold the extra support that is needed. Probably because Apple is an extremely American company and they just can't grasp that in some parts of the world, they can't have it all their way.
The odd thing is that Europe is far easier to deal in, yes, there are longer warranties but then again, nobody can sue for millions for trivial cases. Warranty costs can be easily calculated and avoided with good QA (haha, Apple and QA) but frivolous lawsuits can come out at your right out of the blue.
Re: (Score:3)
If the consumer association wins it's case ... (Score:2)
"If the consumer association wins it's case,..." Doesn't sound like a big if.
Re: (Score:2)
To which Apple replied... (Score:2)
Belgium [quora.com]...
And everyone was so offended that they forgot about the lawsuit entirely.
just raise the price... extended warrantees cost $ (Score:2)
Re:just raise the price... extended warrantees cos (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in the short term. Longer warranties translate to products designed to last longer which then have a lower cost of ownership. Of course, if all you care about is getting the latest shiny object from the factories in China, then you probably don't care about the warranty. But, consider that if you plan to sell your device and buy a new one, longer product lives translate to higher resale value.
Summary is bullshit flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
You may be surprised that a summary on /. is less than correct ... OK I'll leave the snark out.
Repeat after me: *There is NO “mandatory 2 years warranty” in the European Union*
What there is, is a “Maengelhaftung”, which is usually translated to “Liability for defects”. This is to be granted by the *seller* of a consumer good to a consumer. It is valid for 2 years from the date of purchase. Any defect showing in the first 6 months is assumed to be a manufacturing error, burden of proof of the opposite is with the seller, for the remaining 18 months the customer has to proof that the defect was already present at time of purchase.
As Apple sells its products in its own stores in europe (online included) it adheres to EU law, if Apple products are sold through a third party, the consumer has to deal with that third party.
Apple grants a voluntary 1 year warranty. This actually strengthens the purchasers position, because the above mentioned “burden of proof” now lies with Apple for the first *12* months. No consumer advocacy group in Europe has a problem with this.
But Apple additionally sells “Apple Care” contracts, which extend Apples warranty to three years. If you read closely this far, you'll notice that this is a much better protection for the consumer than the mandatory “Liability for defects” the EU imposes and absolutely doesn't touch this EU Directive. Regardless of any voluntary or sold warranty the EU Directive still stands.
Now, what the european consumer advocacy groups say is that Apple misleads the already (through the “Liability for defects” EU Directive) fine protected consumer into believing they wouldn't be protected after 12 months without buying Apple Care. If people are very stupid, and often they are, this could very well be the case.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML [europa.eu]
Re:Summary is bullshit flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Was about to post this... the summary gives an entirely wrong idea. All four linked sources have it right, but slashdot being slashdot manages to get it all wrong...
Note that in some countries this is also a language issue. There is a difference between defects liability (two years in the EU, applies to the business that actually sold you the product, first six months the burden of proof is on the seller) and a warranty (a promise that a business may make as part of a business transaction, such as the one year warranty that Apple provides voluntarily but that is not required at all by EU law). In German these are also clearly distinguished ("Gewährleistung" vs. "Garantie") but in French, for example, as far as I know it's one word for both ("garantie").
So the problem here is that Apple is being misleading due to a language issue and failing to explain the difference between different types of a "garantie". There isn't really a story in this anyway, anyone who knows how warranties and defects liability work in the EU knows that Apple as a manufacturer can only be offering a voluntary warranty, and that the store where you actually buy the product is subject to defects liability, and it's not Apple's job as a manufacturer to explain that on its web site.
Re:Summary is bullshit flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
There isn't really a story in this anyway, anyone who knows how warranties and defects liability work in the EU knows that Apple as a manufacturer can only be offering a voluntary warranty, and that the store where you actually buy the product is subject to defects liability, and it's not Apple's job as a manufacturer to explain that on its web site.
As long as Apple sells directly to customers, that's absolutely their job to explain the difference. Besides even if your rights are guaranteed in law I think all companies have a responsibility to clearly say what rights you have by law, that the warranty is not a replacement for that and what it actually offers that isn't already guaranteed by law.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I was up to explaining it myself, but you did a great job. Should be voted up!
Re: (Score:2)
Now, what the european consumer advocacy groups say is that Apple misleads the already (through the “Liability for defects” EU Directive) fine protected consumer into believing they wouldn't be protected after 12 months without buying Apple Care. If people are very stupid, and often they are, this could very well be the case.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML [europa.eu]
Confusing Warranty (Garantie) and the EU mandated "Gewährleistung" (what you referred to as "Mangelhaftung") is actually quite a common mistake. You should check out a few European consumer electronics forums - on the German ones that I frequent, most people who join to ask questions about their dead electronics don't know the difference between the two. I sure as hell didn't until I actually needed to use a warranty in Germany for the first time...
Re: (Score:3)
How can a consumer prove that some electronic component ( hard disk, motherboard) defect is already present at the time of purchase?
Remember, you're talking about an argument between private parties, so the standard of proof is going to be "balance of probabilities" (or equivalent in local commercial law). The consumer has a non-working component (otherwise why bother with the fuss?) so all they need to do is to make a reasonable assertion that they've not done anything unreasonable to make it fail. Using the thing as it was intended to be used is reasonable. Because the consumer is actually going to be turning up with pretty good evide
European Warranty (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
in lot's of cases retailers were not covered for the second year warranty by their suppliers.
That's the retailer's problem, not the consumer's. If the retailer doesn't like it, they are free to try and renegotiate their contract with the supplier.
Re:Too long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it unreasonable to require a warranty longer than a year for a consumer product? Realistically, if the device you bought is defective you should realize it within a few months. But certainly a year is long enough to notice a defect and get a replacement/repair.
Isn't it unreasonable to require your device to work properly for longer than a year. Realistically, if the device breaks down within two years it's poorly fabricated. But certainly if the device breaks down sooner and you have to buy a new one, the company makes more money.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a prime example of the EU doing what it does well: being reasonable. Sadly it's rarely ever reasonable when you want it to be. Domestic legislation tends to be more 'pro'-active.
Here in the UK we have a domestic statute that goes further than the mandatory 2 year EU Directive because of differing language: goods must be of satisfactory quality for a 'reasonable time'. Because reasonable time isn't defined in the statue or common law, it's possible to bring action under the Sale of Goods act within t
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately a lot of modern electronics are poorly fabricated, often caused by using horrible lead-free solder.
Because why should only one or two joints be dull when they all can be?
Re:Too long? (Score:4, Informative)
Warranties are also supposed to cover defects that materialise after some time and are not apparent at purchase.
Here in Australia, the law covers how long the item is reasonably expected to last, given its cost and quality. Given that the phones are often sold with two year contracts, the one year warranty is certainly deficient from that perspective. Having had two iPhones fail between the one year warranty and the two that should apply, I'm not too pleased about Apple dodging their responsibilities under our warranty law.
A $1000 phone that only lasts 13 months can't really be considered of merchantable quality, regardless of how quickly the industry progresses.
Re: (Score:3)
The interesting things, here in Australia, are that (a) since the contract of sale is between you and the retailer the retailer is responsible for warranty repairs, and (b) in the case of devices that are sold with the cost amortised over the length of a contract (like phones), the ACCC considers that the warranty should last at least as long as the contract.
AFAIK, all major phone dealers now abide by that - warranties that last the length of the contract are standard, except for Telstra with iPhones (and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... he certainly didn't present a compelling argument to ban sales of iPhones.
There's a good reason for that. I didn't attempt to present an argument to ban sales of iPhones. You well and truly missed the point.
"Merchantable quality" is a phrase that comes up in warranty law here, in that it if it fails before it's reasonably expected to, it's defective and the consumer deserves a refund. How you got "ban sales of iPhones" from that is a mystery to me. Grandparent is right - if "shit happens", it should be Apple's problem, not mine.
If you think Apple products only ever fail due to us
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't attempt to present an argument to ban sales of iPhones.
Maybe a good compromise would be to only sell them from the top shelf...
Re: (Score:2)
Grandparent is right - if "shit happens", it should be Apple's problem, not mine.
But whatever you do, don't use lube or you'll get Santorum, and that will be all USA's (... and the world's) problem!
Re: (Score:2)
You know, despite the jokes on slashdot, you really are NOT supposed to insert them into your anus. Now you know why.
As far as the phone not being merchantable? You got a couple of outliers. Shit happens.
Now you know why you should have an enema before "using" your iPhone... Shit won't "happen" if you rinse it out beforehand!
Re:Too long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it unreasonable to require a warranty longer than a year for a consumer product? Realistically, if the device you bought is defective you should realize it within a few months.
That's not the purpose of a warranty - at least, not the sole purpose, and not in my country (Australia). The mandatory warranty period is designed, not only to ensure that the product is fit for use at the time it's sold, but also that it meets a certain minimum level of durability and quality components.
Re: (Score:3)
How about a battery that runs out of cycles in normal use after 15 months?
Re:Too long? (Score:4, Informative)
How about a battery that runs out of cycles in normal use after 15 months?
Got caught by that one myself a few years back... My Acer laptop battery died after about 15 months, Acer told me that it was a "consumable" and therefore refused to replace it under the 2 year warranty (notably the replacement battery I bought has now died after a similar length of time, which suggests to me that the fault is in the laptop, not the battery). The upshot of all this is that neither myself, nor my business will ever touch an Acer product and we recommend to our customers that they avoid Acer too.
There were other problems that Acer refused to deal with. For example, the DSDT is broken on this hardware (Travelmate 6413), and Acer refused to acknowledge any fault or release a new BIOS, despite me fixing the DSDT and sending them the fixed code.
Re: (Score:3)
My Acer laptop battery died after about 15 months, Acer told me that it was a "consumable" and therefore refused to replace it under the 2 year warranty (notably the replacement battery I bought has now died after a similar length of time, which suggests to me that the fault is in the laptop, not the battery)
15 months of daily use = about 400 cycles, which is roughly the minimum expected lifespan of a li-ion battery. I see no evidence of fault. Yes, they *can* last up to 3 times that long, but only with high quality batteries in optimal conditions (i.e. kept at or below room temperature at all times) and you're unlikely to see this in a laptop.
There were other problems that Acer refused to deal with. For example, the DSDT is broken on this hardware (Travelmate 6413), and Acer refused to acknowledge any fault or release a new BIOS, despite me fixing the DSDT and sending them the fixed code.
DSDT is an optional feature, unless they are specifically advertising compliance with the ACPI specification (I have *never* seen an end-user PC manufacturer advertise t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it unreasonable to require a warranty longer than a year for a consumer product? Realistically, if the device you bought is defective you should realize it within a few months. But certainly a year is long enough to notice a defect and get a replacement/repair.
I have a Macbook Pro 13". Just outside of the 1-year warranty period, one of the memory slots has mysteriously gone bad and no longer works (yes, it's the slot, not the memory). Also just outside of the 1-year warranty period, the DVD drive died. About the two year mark, the internal hard drive cable (yes, the cable) died. Memory slot? Hard drive cable? That's nothing put poor design or faulty manufacturing. No WAY those are any kind of user abuse issues. The DVD drive at least has some moving parts - n
Re: (Score:2)
the free market
That does NOT exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you're not very good at chess, right?
One doesn't have to look very many moves ahead to see how your logic can easily lead to what is essentially feudalism.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Regardless of how disposable you and manufacturers think electronics are, some people save and use their hard earned money to buy these things (as opposed to charging it and carrying a balance by only paying the minimum/interest or 0% financing gimmicks). Though, I think a mandatory warranty law just raises prices to cover replacement parts/repair, instead of actually increasing the product's build quality.
I used the warranty for a cheap mouse/kb from Logitech, and my G9x. I had an HP laptop with the o
Bend over some more Yank (Score:5, Insightful)
Warranty is simple, it is the period of time in which you can REASONABLY expect a product to keep functioning. 2 years isn't even the upper limit, for things that you can expect to function for longer, like a washing machine, a car etc etc, it is far longer. However, after 2 years, the warranty does go down, cosmetic issues are no longer covered but if after two years your washing machine falls apart, it should STILL be repaired for free.
What the little sheep mosb1000 doesn't get that warranty is NOT about DOA, devices that are broken when you buy them, but about devices that break down to fast. Warranty is repair of any issues in device that occur that are not part of its normal deterioration of its expected lifetime.
Simply put, if I buy a oLed tablet, the blues going out after a period of time is not covered under warranty since this is to be expected. The paint on my car going off after a decade (if that is still normal) is not covered since that is expected. Rust holes forming after 5 years in a decent car IS covered since this is not to be expected anymore.
This also allows some devices to fall under 2 years, under 1 year and even shorter. If you buy a led blinker for your bike, coming back in 1 year that the battery is empty isn't covered of course. Complaining that paper decoration runs after only one winter in the rain is likely not to covered either no matter how much you sue.
But a normal customer should be able to use a device in a good condition under normal use for a reasonable amount of time and if that isn't possible, this should either be reflected in the price, have a very good reason or the producer should repair it.
Only complete and utter sheep think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply put, if I buy a oLed tablet, the blues going out after a period of time is not covered under warranty since this is to be expected.
I'm not sure about that. If you weren't made aware of this issue when you bought it, could you reasonably have been expected to know? By the same token you could say "if I buy a car made out of cheap low quality parts and it falls to pieces after a period of time then this wouldn't be covered under the warranty because it is expected" - it may be expected by the manufacturer, but whether it is expected by the average consumer is another question.
I guess a comparison needs to be drawn against similar produ
Re: (Score:2)
it's not unreasonable. think about it. it's an electronics device, if it's so shitty it breaks in a year it's a hazard.
but here's the kicker: they're responsible for manufacturing defects forever! if the fault can be shown to have been a manufacturing defect(a defect present at sale) and it manifests itself 5 years later, they'll still have to fix it!
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
Does this mean secondhand sales are illegal?
No the 2 year warrenty is only for new goods. And if you sell secondhand within the 2 years the original warranty(The one you got when you bought the product as new) will stil cover the product.
And I need to ask: What kind of electronic products do you buy which are expected to break down within a year?
Re: (Score:3)
I've become accustomed to Americans reacting like this in regards to warranty comments.
They have no concept of decent support, sure they get the cheapest prices in the world but the cheapest shit too. When it breaks down - tough.
Australia thank goodness has a 1 year warranty on items, too, PERIOD. If something breaks it should be looked after. I recall Americans claiming they only got 3 month warranties on the Xbox 360 (initially) - I don't know if this is true or just misinformation but it seems many cu
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Funny)
Does this mean secondhand sales are illegal?
No the 2 year warrenty is only for new goods. And if you sell secondhand within the 2 years the original warranty(The one you got when you bought the product as new) will stil cover the product.
And I need to ask: What kind of electronic products do you buy which are expected to break down within a year?
Anything made by Apple?
Declaration of Interest: posted in part (about 20%) to annoy my daughter who likes her mac.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
A primary function of regulators in the marketplace is to define standard units of measure and minimum terms of standard classes of contracts, such as contracts for retail sale of durable goods. Just as standards for weight of produce are needed, so too are standards of durability for durable goods, otherwise the customer can't compare costs on a level basis.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was no regulation on a warranty it would continue the race to the bottom in a short term grab for more cash.
It's *not* heavy-handed at all. If you can't manufacturer a product to last 3 years, or at least within a certain failure rate, you are cutting corners and fucking the consumer.
2nd hand sales have always been exempt, and the warranty has always followed the product. In some cases it took me getting to a few supervisors, but I have never failed to get an RMA for a product in warranty without any proof of purchase. The product itself is proof I am covered under the warranty.
I don't know what consumer products are intended to last less than two years anyways. If you mean some sort of consumable than that is usually exempt from any kind of warranty. In fact, if it is not intended to last for a certain period I believe that is called an expiration date. Products like that clearly do not have a warranty in a classical sense.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't manufacturer a product to last 3 years, or at least within a certain failure rate, you are cutting corners and fucking the consumer.
Not environmentally friendly too.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the justification for this kind of heavy-handedness?
Consumer protection. Enacted by a government formed by the very citizens the law was enacted to protect. You (most likely) and I (for sure) are from the US; we're not use to government working *for us* though, so I'm not shocked you're unfamiliar with the concept.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, only in the US people vehemently argue for their right to get screwed.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
These clowns are absolutely unbelievable sometimes. No wonder they get screwed over by companies so badly over there - some of them seem to LIKE it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always buy something from abroad, nobody stops you from intentionally screwing yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
As a citizen, I expect to have the freedom to purchase a product with a 3 month warranty, if that's what I chose.
A peculiarly American atitude. Of course you never choose the 3 month warranty. The manufacturer or retailer does.
America is effectively a corporate state. You get a democratic choice between two parties that both bow down to (and are financed by) the corporations. News and current affairs are also dominated by that corporate interest.
So effective have they been that a majority of Americans, such as yourself, actually argue for the corporate interest as if it is what is best for themselves. Even when it cle
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, here in the EU we actually have something called consumer rights. Our politicians are not completely owned by corporations as in the US, and corporations cannot screw over the consumer without consequences.
An electronic device is considered "durable goods", and as such comes with a 2 year warranty in the EU.
Why do you jump to defend the corporations that are trying to screw you with defective or poorly made merchandise?
Re: (Score:3)
For consumer protection law that works well, see New Zealand. [consumeraffairs.govt.nz]
Nice and simple. Goods and services must be
"Merchantable quality" means that while some things might be expected to last less than a year, a PC is expected to last two or three.
Works the same here in the UK (not entirely sure where this "2 year minimum warranty" thing comes from - certainly doesn't seem to be reflected in UK law, which it should if its an EU directive). Basically, the _retailer_ must warrant that the product lasts as long as people would reasonably expect it to last. In the first 6 months, the burden of proof is on the retailer (i.e. if they don't want to repair/replace it then they most prove that it didn't break due to a defect), after the first 6 months the b
So? (Score:2)
They do cost more in Europe. What is your point?
For an easy compare, see EU and US prices in iTunes compared against exchange rates.
Re:So what... (Score:4, Informative)
Market dictates that if Apple products sold in EU countries come with 2 year Apple care
That is NOT the case.
The mandatory warranty does not cover everything Applecare covers, so Apple can still sell Applecare as an ADDITIONAL warranty to consumers.
But Apple has to inform the customers of this choice, rather than implying that a product without Applecare is not protected.
Besides, most products are already more expensive in the EU, in part to cover this mandatory warranty and the fact that prices for consumers have to include VAT.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how prices work. If Apple thinks they could increase prices and make more money, they already would've. If they didn't, it's because they know it doesn't pay off (people would buy less).
Warranty lengths (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe that the warranty length does have an effect on product design though. If you only have to worry about maintaining something at your own expense for 1 year, you'll design it differently than if you have to support it for 2, 5 or whatever.
Because you want to sell at the lowest price possible, if you have to warranty it to the point where repair/replacement costs become too significant, building it better is actually cheaper than providing warranty support.
Now, I'm normally free market as all heck. But look at the environmental chain - building a fridge that has an average lifespan last a decade might cost 10% more than one that will only last 5. But 2 fridges, each with 90% of the resources of the long lasting one, is still 180% of the resources. Sure, they might be 90% recyclable, but you're still down.
Where does the problem come in? Nobody really offers the longer warranties by choice. I'm forced to go by brand name, consumer reports, and hopefully luck. Brand Name - quality ebbs and flows. Consumer reports doesn't get enough time to test, especially since quality varies over the years. That leaves mostly luck.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not how prices work. If Apple thinks they could increase prices and make more money, they already would've. If they didn't, it's because they know it doesn't pay off (people would buy less).