Apple Is Forced By EU To Give 2 Years Warranty On All Its Products 270
dsmalle writes "Apple has adapted its warranty to cover 2 years, under pressure of the European Union and after European consumer organizations sued Apple. From the article: 'The warranty conditions have been changed and these changes can be found on the website of Apple. Products that are purchased on the website of the manufacturer or in stores are now under warranty for two years, as it is required by the EU warranty guidelines. However, the warranty for Apple products that have been purchased elsewhere will not change and they will only be given a limited one-year warranty.'"
As An American... (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the only comparable laws I can think of in the US have to do with automobile emissions systems. If your car starts spewing too much pollution before 90,000 miles, the manufacturer is on the hook regardless of what warranty they sold with the car.
Re:As An American... (Score:5, Informative)
This is really amusing to me, that the EU has laws that mandate minimum warranty policies for devices sold.
Actually, it's much more than that.
Not only was Apple not selling devices with the warranty required by law, but Apple was trying to upsell additional Applecare warranty to cover the mandatory warranty time period.
Of course, if it's out of warranty, you're probably SOL since Apple designs most of its products to be non-repairable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So I guess this raises the question of why Europeans bought Apple products despite those products breaking the law? Did they have faith in that their government would enforce the law, or did they simply not care that the law was being broken?
Re:As An American... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As An American... (Score:5, Informative)
The summary and story is somewhat misleading. Under EU law, Apple has supported 2 years but it wasn't clear to a consumer in the EU. The warranty policy on Apple website listed 1 year.**
**Local warranty laws apply. Your country may support a longer warranty.
Worse yet, they were selling extended warranties which adds more years but not clearly stating that consumers already got 2 years. There wasn't consensus about the length from some anecdotal testimony so Apple may have to review this with all of their employees. This stems from the earlier Italian ruling. Italy did not rule that Apple was breaking laws by not offering a 2yr warranty but rather it was somewhat confusing to the customer and that an asterisk on the warranty agreement wasn't good enough. Needlessly upselling also was noted.
Re:As An American... (Score:4)
So the bottom line is, Apple has progressed from selling people things they don't need to selling people things they already own.
Re:As An American... (Score:5, Informative)
In the EU, you can't change the laws by writing terms on your website, or providing some arbitrary "agreement" with the product. All it takes is for someone to challenge it, and Apple will get a slap on the wrist and get told that the law applies.
And now that someone did challenge this 1 year warranty "agreement", Apple has got their slap on the wrist and changed their heinous ways.
That's all there is to it really...
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't think about warranties unless and until the product stops working. At that point they'll dig out the paperwork and see if they're covered.
They probably don't know that 2 years is a mandatory warranty period. And wouldn't think about the warranty period at time of purchase unless the retailer brings the topic up.
The EU law is there to ensure that product vendors don't take advantage of this lack of foresight by consumers. And because it's a common market to ensure some consistency of treatm
At least in Holland the case is this (Score:2)
IF Apple had REALLY refused to honor the 2 year minimum warranty (devices are supposed to work for their expected life) then IF the customer knew his rights, he would simply have demanded his rights and Apple would have lost the case on every level.
The PSP had a very bad screen and Sony tried to make claims that cheap devices could have a number of defective sub-pixels. In Holland, the consumer program Kassa ("Cash register but also what we say when Americans say "Caching") arranged that Sony had to replace
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple can try what it wants but if anyone makes a simple complaint, Apple is going to lose. Even this new thing is meaningless. In Europe, you got two years warranty at least. Take Apple to court, you will win since the law leaves no room for interpretation.
Some people prefer not having to take a seller to court in order to have the law honored. Most people do not have the time nor the inclination to bring a random seller to court. So this matters because it settles the record straight for all consumer
Re: (Score:2)
well, apple is still liable to the extend the law requires(well, the retailer is, but apple was acting as the retailer in this).
bigger shit is stuff like installing them with moisture sensors that are trigged before the device is sold to consumer, selling devices that they claim are meant to not work under 0c and so forth(though I think about that there's some consumer protection decision that if it's a fucking mobile PHONE there's the assumption that you can use it outdoors during winter too).
Re:As An American... (Score:5, Interesting)
And if this was the USA, there would be a class-action lawsuit
If this was the USA, the ToS likely prohibits the customer from bringing a class-action lawsuit in the first place. [wikipedia.org]
I don't know for sure, though, as I don't have the time to read 56 pages worth of legalese [time.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't stop us non-Apple users from bringing suit against Apple for violations of the law. It's still a crime against ALL consumers, and since I didn't sign away shit, I am quite free to sue on the side of the people.
Standing (Score:3)
That doesn't stop us non-Apple users from bringing suit against Apple
In that case, how are you going to prove standing [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a term for the psychological condition of being a pathological liar?
Re:As An American... (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe you cant waive basic rights. if your country law say you can do lawsuits, no matter what the ToS try to sell you, isnt valid. This warranty case is just that, the ToS says something that isnt valid as the above law already gave you that rights
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There are states with strict implied-warranty laws - I think as long as 4 years. Some states won't even allow as-is sales!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is standard consumer protection stuff. Does the US have a directly equivalent law? No idea, but it doesn't lack laws that are in the same ballpark. Indeed, some, such as the requirement that all electronics be vetted by the FCC and contain shielding to prevent their circuits from accidentally broadcasting something that might cause a little interference on a TV or radio in the same room, seem a tad less understandable than creating a basic standard of merchantability - you have to stand behind your product for two years. Hardly unreasonable.
What gives?
Errr, Europe has the same non-interference/resistance to interference laws that the US have.
OG.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I still don't understand why Americans on Slashdot (only on Slashdot) appear to think it's a big deal that the EU has laws like this.
I don't think that this perception has anything to do with Slashdot. It's certainly a cultural thing.
If Congress tried to pass something like this, we would never hear the end of "socialist liberal government taking over the free market." Sigh. But as you said, standard consumer protection stuff.
Re:As An American... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Congress tried to pass something like this, we would never hear the end of "socialist liberal government taking over the free market." Sigh.
Absolutely. Because the States is effectively rules by the corporations. Somehow certain consumers would complain about a law that only benefits them. How brainwashed are they?
Re: (Score:3)
Count me with the brainwashed.
I will. Indeed you are exactly the kind of person I'm talking about.
Swings and Roundabouts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Swings and Roundabouts (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the US allows companies to force you into no-sue contracts (like Sony and EA have done).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For many other sates, but at least for california, those no sue clauses are unenforceable and void precisely because they are not legal.
Nope. The supreme court ruled last year in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts any state laws to that effect and thus they can force you into their choice of arbitration providers.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you still have a choice because you can buy yourself a farm in Amish country. That's about what it will take to completely avoid dealing with corporations that engage in the kind of rights-stripping nonsense we're talking about here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, only Amish don't own PS3.
Re:As An American... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Apple i-device users are famous for buying another every year, so who benefits by a two year guarantee for a one year product, its like demanding a 10 year guarantee for a gallon of milk from the grocery store...
Some people change cars every four years. That means we don't need to make cars that last any longer.
See how half-assed that logic is?
Even if you do buy a new iDevice every year, why should the old one stop working?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's "AppleCare+" warranty extension is actually pretty good. It even covers user idiocy. I dropped the hundred bucks on it, and they happily replaced the phone I dropped into a foot of water. Shockingly the thing actually worked for a day afterward, I should have done a better job of drying it. I think a corrosion short killed it, not an actual water short.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it amusing, but it's pretty much normal here in Europe.
Why should a company be allowed to sell something with a 90-day warranty? That's simply absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this aspect of Apple pretty hilarious actually. For a brand that is supposed to be "superior quality", they sure don't stand behind it. If they were worthy of the propaganda, this would not be an issue at all. 4 year warranties would be standard.
You would never have to worry.
Re: (Score:3)
Some states, as you can guess, are hyper-regulated centrally controlled markets and are poor, and some are pretty much free-market and are relatively richer.
Here's a list of states by per capita income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income [wikipedia.org]
Here's a list of states by party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Current_classification [wikipedia.org]
Of the top ten 'richest' states (plus DC), 8 are blue states. Are you saying democrats create thriving free-markets and republicans over-regulate. Wait, that doesn't sound right either.
Re: (Score:2)
Some states, as you can guess, are hyper-regulated centrally controlled markets and are poor, and some are pretty much free-market and are relatively richer.
Erk? Really? I've live in Alabama (very free market, very poor), Louisiana (mostly free market, pretty poor), Florida (middle of road free market, fairly rich), and Massachusetts (pretty regulated, pretty rich). I don't think the correlation you're trying to make exists. I'm not saying that more regulation necessarily leads to a richer state, but certainly the opposite is not true either. Texas and Florida do pretty well with very free markets, Mass, California, and NY all do pretty well with very regul
Headline Is Understated for Once (Score:5, Insightful)
For once, the headline is understated.
It really doesn't matter what Apple's warranty duration is, because there seems to be a statutory warranty of 2 years in at least part of the EU.
What this story is really about is Apple selling 2-year AppleCare plans in places with statutory warranties of 2 years, which is pretty darned slimy IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to downgrade your warranty in the EU? I think the 2 year mandatory warranty is only useful to make companies with less than stellar brand recognition invest in the quality of their products. For well-established companies, their image is too important to not strive for high quality.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, I agree - but I've always either regretted not buying AppleCare or been glad to have it. I don't find Apple's products to be any shoddier or less reliable than other electronics in the same price range, but even if they were the AppleCare service has always been fantastic for me.
But selling a redundant warranty is slimy as hell. That's like Best Buy crap.
Re: (Score:2)
For most products I would agree with you, but after three in-home repairs my TV was declared a lemon and replaced with a newer model free of charge. If I had not purchased that warranty I would be starring at a $2000 pile of junk.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's not how they market AppleCare. [apple.com] They primarily market it as an extended warranty and extended support. Even the revised ad I linked to is slimy, with it still saying 1 year but then having a footnote.
I generally really like Apple, but these last two marketing stories have me a bit miffed. First it was the misleading 4G service with the iPad and now it is this warranty business. My only consolation is that I don't live in the EU, where all this misleading stuff is happening... so sure, Apple market
Re: (Score:2)
Apple employs more than enough lawyers to help them determine whether offering their products for sale in a particular market would produce a fair result or not, so yes, the EU should force Apple to provide whatever it requires other manufacturers to provide to their customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple employs more than enough lawyers to help them determine whether offering their products for sale in a particular market would produce a fair result or not, so yes, the EU should force Apple to provide whatever it requires other manufacturers to provide to their customers.
Which is exactly zero. The EU doesn't force manufacturers to give any warranty at all. So Apple's ONE year warranty (read that, you idiot submitter? ONE year, not two!) is completely voluntarily (of course once you buy the product that warranty is part of the deal).
The EU does however the seller of a product to fix problems under certain conditions. So if you buy an iMac at PC World, the EU gives you rights against PC World, not against Apple. If you buy a Canon printer at an Apple Store, the EU gives yo
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't being forced to give away AppleCare, they're being forced to respect the standard warranty imposed by the EU.
In other words, they're being forced to repair the devices for free if they were bought in the last two years.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is not forcing to offer Applecare for free. It is forcing Apple to indicate clearly that Apple products sold in the EU are under the 2-year statuary warranty (for defects present in the product before delivery) mandated by law.
Yes, but it is up to Apple to prove that the products were abused, with problems from normal use being something their products should not have. Deliberately jumping up and down on you iPhone counts as voiding the statutory warranty, but simply calling people normally does not. (Yes, there is space in there for court decisions, but the courts are mostly pretty reasonable in this area.)
Which isn't to say that they've got to fix the device on the spot, or offer a temporary replacement while the device is bein
I'm glad to hear this (Score:2)
That is something I really like when buying electronic equipment within Europe, knowing that warranty is always 2 years (with exceptions like batteries). How does it work out in other places?
Re: (Score:2)
Some years back I read that manufactures tend to ship their best runs to the eu because of our warranty requirement. I can't think of a single electronic gizmo I've bought the last 10 years that didn't make it way beyond the 2 years.
Re:I'm glad to hear this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In other places Apple/*insert whatever company you want here* sells crap with short warranties (some as short as 90 days) and the consumer gets screwed over.
Silly headline.... (Score:5, Informative)
.... Just silly... Apple wasn't "forced by EU", was forced by the EU directives that were transposed to law in all EU countries. The headline should be: "Apple forced to abide the law in EU countries".... since it wasn't until now. It's not something that just happened to "fall" on our laps here in EU countries just now... it's decade and an half old law.
Re: (Score:3)
Where are my mod points. Oh wait... AC
Anyway, this is 100% correct. Apple has been skirting EU law for some time, and there have been various lawsuits in some EU member countries against Apple for pulling these stunts.
Now, there are teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly it was only a MOU not a directive so afaict it's only binding on those who signed it (which admittedly DOES include apple) and those signatories reserve the right to withdraw at any time....
Further looking at the memor itself
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/files/chargers/chargers_mou_en.pdf [europa.eu]
"4.2.1 In order that compatibility of as many Mobile Phones as possible with a Common EPS may be enabled, if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a
Apple still weaselling out of it (Score:5, Interesting)
This hasn't changed anything. What's the point of a warranty that lasts two years which covers defects that were present on delivery?
(See http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/)
Apple should be forced to stop weaselling and just give us what the law requires.
-- An Apple Fanboi
Re:Apple still weaselling out of it (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point of a warranty that lasts two years which covers defects that were present on delivery?
"Defects present on delivery" IS what the law requires. However, the intended interpretation of this is that a product is defect if it cannot sustain two years of regular wear and tear without breaking. As such, bad soldering causing your screen to stop functioning after 19 months is considered a defect present at moment of purchase.
Re:Apple still weaselling out of it (Score:4, Insightful)
That IS what a warranty is. You seem to be mixing up insurance and warranty.
Otherwise, what's to prevent me from breaking the display and claiming it should be covered by the warranty?
Re: (Score:3)
And honestly, if there is a defect from the manufacturer, they could give you a lifetime warranty and it wont make a difference, it will be found in the first 30 days 99% of the time, after that, it probably isn't a manufacturer defect. These aren't cars. There are no 'moving parts' outside of a few fans and a hard drive.
Several generations of white Macbooks released in 2006-2007 were prone to cracks in the casing, definitely a design/manufacturing defect. Apple would attempt repairs even outside the standard 1-year (in the US) warranty. It was even possible, after several repair attempts, that they replace it with the latest-generation Macbook [cultofmac.com].
I myself got a free Macbook battery replacement 4 years after purchase. Granted it was bulging (a rarer but also-known defect) and they probably exchanged it free for safety/liabilit
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reasonable expectation that a hard drive will last longer than 18 months, when used according to its spec (eg the temperature is kept within the specified limits, and the device is not subjected to shocks exceeding those stated on the spec sheet, and not subjected to water etc)...
Indeed it is not uncommon for hard drives to last for years, even when subjected to harsh conditions. I had some scsi drives that ran for over 10 years in a server that was badly overheating, and still worked when they w
Re: (Score:2)
There are no 'moving parts' outside of a few fans and a hard drive.
Actually, there are. Components like the CPU and GPU expand and contract a lot due to the thermal differences between on and off. That can be enough to break solder joints after a few months.
Re: (Score:3)
That *is* what the law requires. A warranty is to cover defects of workmanship or materials of the product as shipped. That means that if the product goes wrong within the warranty period, and it hasn't been mistreated or suffered accidental damage then it's deemed to have not been of sufficient quality when manufactured and repaired or replaced.
Extended warranties sometimes go beyond that, such as Apple's own 1st year warranty or Applecare extended warranty. But they are not required by law.
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't matter if the defect only manifests itself later - the thing is that the defect isn't because the consumer drilled it or something.
of course.. haha.. apple will can claim that walking outside here and back is enough to break it..
Nothing has changed : Apple just explains it (Score:4, Informative)
Apple was forced by EU to be more forthcoming about warranty policies.
Apple provided warranty, as a MANUFACTURER, is limited to 1 year and Apple pushed it warranty extension for 2 to 3 years (2 years for iOS devices, 3 years for Macs). It covers a range of issues that can appear after the sell.
EU wasn't really happy with this because EU law mandates a 2 years warranty by the SELLER, for issue existing before the sell. EU thought that Apple was forcing clients to get a warranty extension even if they were entitled to a 2 year coverage (similar but not exactly identical).
Now Apple clearly states this distinction.
So if you bought your Apple product in another shop, after 1 year, you need to get in contact with that shop, that will contact Apple to identify the issue and see if this is linked to a preexisting problem or link to your usage. In the later case, your "seller provided" warranty won't help you.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a 1 year warranty on a phone made sense back when mobile contracts typically lasted 1 year...
But now that mobile contracts are typically 2 years, it should be a legal requirement that any warranty last for at least as long as the contract terms if not longer.
Apple Is NOT Giving A 2 Year Warranty (Score:4, Informative)
As usual, TFS and TFA got it all wrong.
As so clearly painted out on Apple's website [apple.com], there are two factors in play.
Apple's warranty continues to stand at 1 year. If anything short of intentional damage happens in that one year, you get full Apple tech support.
EU Consumer Law meanwhile covers a 2 year period, and as the weaker program takes effect during the second year of ownership. Pay attention here, this is important: if the buyer can prove the product was defective when it was sold, then and only then can they take the product to the seller (who is not necessarily Apple) for coverage. This is not the same as a 2 year warranty as you do not get any direct support from Apple - no phone support, no Apple Store, no authorized service providers; you get what the seller can provide, unless that seller is Apple. And even then Apple will not give the buyer the same treatment as a full warranty, and the burden of proof is on the buyer to prove that the product was defective at the time of sale.
For a real warranty over 1 year you still need to purchase an AppleCare plan. That gets you full and direct Apple support, and more importantly there is no burden of proof on the buyer to prove that the product was defective at the time of sale.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For a real warranty over 1 year you still need to purchase an AppleCare plan. That gets you full and direct Apple support, and more importantly there is no burden of proof on the buyer to prove that the product was defective at the time of sale.
The burden of proof is on the seller for the first 6 months, and on the buyer afterwards. Still "burden of proof" doesn't mean it's required to provide evidence of a production defect. Most judges will take the absence of evidence of abuse on the device as proof enough that the issue is due to a production defect. After all either it's not working correctly due to a production defect, or is not working correctly due to damage and damage is easy to demonstrate.
Note that components are supposed to last 2 year
Re: (Score:3)
The legalese sounds horrible but you don't have to prove anything beyond the fact that the product only saw regular use.
afaik they only clarified it (Score:3, Informative)
Misleading title (Score:2)
IT's zero cost to apple. (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly, if apple was to say, "Oh ok, in fact world wide 2 year warranty" they would have created a gigantic PR buzz that would have hurt everyone else at ZERO cost to them.
Honestly, the failure rate difference between 1 year and 2 years cant be big enough to cost them anything. It's almost a Zero cost to them with gigantic gains in PR if they embraced it.
Plus it would give all their competitors gigantic headaches.
Both article and summary misleading (Score:3, Informative)
1.) A mandatory warranty that all _sellers_ of goods have to give by law, which is valid for two years. This covers only problems that existed prior to the purchase. So for example, if some part breaks simple to being worn out, the _seller_ has no obligation to cover it. If a problem occurs within the first six month after purchase, it is assumed by law that the problem existed prior to the purchase. The burden of proof that the problem did not exist prior to the purchase is up to the _seller_. In practice, such proof is difficult, and thus _seller_ will usually handle the problem. After six month up to two years, the burden of proof is up to the buyer. Since again, this is almost impossible to do without an expensive expertise, this effectively limits this warranty up to six month. Note that this is an issue between the _seller_ and the _buyer_, even though if a defect occurs and the seller is not the manufacturer, say the seller is amazon, the seller when faced with a defective product will claim the same warranty to the manufacturer. Some might have other agreements with the manufacturer.
2.) Almost all manufacturers give on top a voluntary warranty to the customer of two years. This warranty is completely voluntary, and the customer has no real legal means to enforce it.
What happened here is that Apple is one of the very few manufacturers who only give voluntary warranty of one year. They (essentially the apple store) tried to sell additional warranties for up to three years (Apple Care), but without making it clear, that the buyer can anyway claim warranty against the seller of goods for up to two years (even though, this is hardly enforceable after six month, unless it is a problem so widespread that it would, say, lead to a class-action lawsuit in the US). The judges asked Apple to make this more explicit. Instead, Apple finally went ahead and introduced voluntary warranty conditions that are similar to any other manufacturer in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Any half-decent manufacturer will replace a broken product within two years with few to no questions asked (assuming the product wasn't subjected to anything out of the ordinary, of course).
The submitter is an idiot (Score:2, Redundant)
Apple hasn't given in to any pressure, and Apple hasn't made any changes whatsoever. What Apple has done is presenting on a website what rights Apple customers have towards the seller of a product (whoever is the seller, and whoever makes the product), what rights Apple as the manufacturer voluntarily gives to buyers of Apple products (One year. ONE year. Not TWO years you bloody idiot submitter), and what rights Apple gives yo
why i dont buy apple's products (Score:2)
Alternative titles (Score:3)
An alternative title would be:
"Apple made to comply with existing laws that are quite reasonable, everyone else complies with and which aid the consumer."
So I don't really see what the fuss is about. If you're building expensive devices and putting them into people's hands, expecting them to last two years isn't a hardship, unless your business is BUILT upon their obsolescence. In which case, this is a win for the consumer is stopping you doing things like that.
"Apple FORCED to make devices that last more than a year on average". Gosh. The horror.
And every other electronics manufacturer trading in the EU has to do the same and has done for a while now. Hell, I can get CARS with a five year warranty, and there's no end of things that could go wrong on them and it costs the manufacturer 10 times as much if they do go wrong or they have a design flaw.
"Apple THREATENED WITH LAWSUIT if they don't give consumers a good deal"
Well.... bloody good job!
It's not a warranty (Score:2)
So while it is nice to have such consumer prot
Odd... (Score:2)
Apple pumps out a new version, what, every month?
Re:This does not seem fair (Score:4, Informative)
It's manufacturer warranty - the retailer has nothing to do with this.
Re:This does not seem fair (Score:5, Informative)
It is a retailer warranty. It only applies as Apple sells something directly to consumers.
In other cases, other retailers have to get Apple to fix the stuff, but Apple isn't directly liable.
Re: (Score:2)
The retailer is responsible for taking care of the repair/replacement. That means Joe consumer deals with the retailer, which in turn deals with Apple.
There are comapnies that take care of warranties directly, however, they're the minority. I can think of Corsair and Microsoft (Xbox 360 only).
Re: (Score:3)
In Europe?
Warranties on *all* electrical goods in Europe are two years by law. Apple isn't being singled out here.
Here in Spain (YMMV): After a short "DOA" period from the day you bought it (maybe a couple of weeks), pretty much all warranties are dealt with directly by the manufacturer. When things go wrong you call the number on the warranty card in the box.
The last couple of things that failed on me (Samsung monitor, Benq DVD burner) I called them and they sent a guy right to my door with a replacement.
...or is it? (Score:3)
Warranties on *all* electrical goods in Europe are two years by law.
This isn't the first time I hear that claim on /. but I don't think it's true. The consumer agency in my country [kuluttajavirasto.fi] states the following on their website:
Re:...or is it? (Score:5, Informative)
"If there really is that kind of law, could some kind soul tell me where to find it?"
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/protection_of_consumers/l32022_en.htm [europa.eu]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:NOT [europa.eu]
Re:This does not seem fair (Score:5, Informative)
It is a retailer warranty. It only applies as Apple sells something directly to consumers.
In other cases, other retailers have to get Apple to fix the stuff, but Apple isn't directly liable.
No, it's a manufacturer warranty, but generally handled by the retailer, who acts as a go-between for the customer and manufacturer.
I.e. if your iGizmo breaks down, you take it to the retailer, who sends it to Apple, who fixes it under warranty. This is in the interest of the consumer, who has a single point of contact. The manufacturer (or, rather, brand name holder) is still the liable part.
This in contrast to US conditions, where the customer usually has to contact the manufacturer directly.
In addition to the mandatory warranty, the purchaser also has reclamation rights not limited to a fixed term, but the reasonably expected lifetime of a product. For consumer electronics, this is generally interpreted to be in the ballpark of the warranty or shorter, but if you buy, say, house siding that cracks after ten years, or a water heater that that breaks down after four years, you probably have a good case for getting it fixed by the manufacturer.
A big difference between that and regular warranty is that for regular warranty, the manufacturer is liable by default and has to show that the customer misused the product to get out of it, while for the reclamation rights, the customer has the burden of evidence.
Still, it is useful, and while I lived in Europe, I exercised this right a couple of times (broken washer/dryer, guitar neck that warped).
Re:This does not seem fair (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's a manufacturer warranty, but generally handled by the retailer, who acts as a go-between for the customer and manufacturer.
Not really. I as the consumer enter a contract with the retailer. I pay them money and they provide me with a product, they are responsible for delivering a decent product and therefore have to give a warranty. Where they got the product from and how they provide the warranty is none of my concern, I didn't enter a contract with the manufacturer, as far as I know they don't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This does not seem fair (Score:4, Informative)
i think you just proved his point 100%. the retailer acts as a go-between. the manufacturer doesn't exist TO YOU. but they do exist. and they are the one that provides the warranty
While they may well be involved in the implementation of the service that makes the warranty work, the retailer provides the warranty (except in the UK if you've paid by credit card, in which case it is the credit card company that does it formally). It's their responsibility in law to get things fixed for you, and that can't be passed on to anyone else. Of course, the retailer may well just pass the faulty item along to the maker for fixing, but if the maker stalls them or messes about then it's the retailer who has to make you good. They sometimes need reminding of this, but it rarely reaches court these days as the laws in the area are very strict and have to be to avoid trouble from slimy retailers and manufacturers; this area is very well tested in other areas of consumer products, and electronics firms are by-and-large relatively honest. (That's a reflection on how bad some other market sectors have been in the past, really.)
Re: (Score:3)
>In other cases, other retailers have to get Apple to fix the stuff, but Apple isn't directly liable.
Apple still have to give that EU retailer the same 2 years warranty, that law isnt just for the final consumer, its for every electric appliance sold as new. (used equipment have different warranty times)
Re: (Score:3)
retailer has everything to do with being responsible to the consumers they retail to. some chains in eu are trying to sell'n'dump-responsibilities but it's not really legit over here(one example is that doesn't matter what smartphone you buy in finland, there's 90% possibility that all warranty issues are handled by one company... it sucks, as the consumer shouldn't have to send his device to a 3rd party company to have it fixed when the retailer is actually responsible for the product they sold).
Re: (Score:2)
please ignore my post. I misread the article and thought that apple would only offer the 2 year warranty when bought directrly from the apple website or apple stores. I read "elsewhere" as non-apple stores in the EU
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, with electronics (particularly those with no moving parts), if it doesn't fail within six months of normal use it's much less likely to be a manufacturer defect. It's one of the primary ideas behind giving computers a "burn-in" period before going into production. From personal experience, failures after the first few months are at least partially due to user error - particularly with mobile devices. Not saying it's always the case, just a healthy majority of them.
Re: (Score:3)
I always assumed iProducts were forged at Mount Doom. Does this mean I don't need to keep simply walking into Cupertino to recycle my iProducts?
Re: (Score:3)
One doesn't simply walk into one infinite loop in Cupertino.
Re: (Score:2)
The more expensive Apple products become, the fewer people who can afford them will be. This isn't price fixing, it's enabling consumers to compare Apples to Apples and oranges to oranges. And, by the way, a warranty is a warranty and a price is a price. Apples and oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
Markets don't work like that. Companies set their prices based on what makes them more profit, not the cost. If they could've raised the price without hurting their income, they already would've.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you're the sort of idiot that thinks you should throw something away because something new has come out, or thinks that they shouldn't resell devices they aren't using (resale value depends on the quality of the initial build, don't forget) or, worse, thinks that 1 year is a long time for a commercial product costing more than my car to last.
The "annual upgrade cycle" is the realm of the idiot. It means that no device you buy has EVER had more than a year or so of testing, or expected to last more
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple though increasing prices would get them more money, then they would already have raised them.
Re: (Score:3)
Much higher prices...
Goods that last are not compatible with modern capitalism, once everyone who's going to buy a product has bought one, it will never break resulting in no further sales and the vendor going bankrupt.
If you force vendors to produce reliable products, then they will find some other method to force you to keep paying them, wether its forced obsolescence (ie the product still works, but is no longer compatible with anything else) or a rental model where you never own the product and just hav
Re: (Score:2)
For most hand tools a lifetime warranty is pretty easy because if the tools are used as intended it is almost impossible to break them. If you only use a screw driver as intended, you can't break it. If you use it as a pry bar, a chisel, etc. Then you can break it but no warranty. Look at a steel combo wrench and figure out how to break that turning a nut by hand.
What makes high end tools more valuable is not that they will last longer, but that they are manufactured to tighter tolerances.
Re: (Score:3)
My experience with hand tools is that they will get stolen or lost LONG before they will break. The lifetime warranty is great (in theory), but when somebody walks off with your wrench you still have to go out and buy a new one. There will always be a business for high quality hand tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they attempted to defraud you...
They should have immediately offered to fix it for free, not try to trick you into buying an extended warranty that you didn't need. Even if they tried to send you an extended warranty, they should not have claimed that this was required in order for them to repair the current defect.