Macbook Owner With Defective GPU Beats Apple In Court 280
New submitter RockoW writes "A few years ago, Apple sold defective computers of the MacBook Pro line. They had the defective Nvidia 8600M GT GPU. In this case Apple refused to take the computer back and issue me a refund. Instead, they promised to replace the 8600M GT boards when they failed, up to four years from the date of purchase. Three years later, the MacBook Pro failed and they refused to replace it. This guy took them to the court and won by their own means."
If You're Going To Make Promises ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple charges top dollar for their hardware.
You would feel bad about "picking on them" for why?
It just works. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember that slogan. Not too long ago even. Before that it was "Think different" and buy the most common mp3 player on the planet. I dislike apple because I dislike marketing, and Apple is like an avatar of marketing; the essence of style over substance given form.
Agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
The customer had the documentation to prove his case, and he won.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Apple is the company which promised to replace his laptop up to 4 years after the date of purchase if it failed but then refused to replace it 3 years later?
Sure, the problem is with the GPU, but since Apple itself *promised* to do something for a customer, they should respect their own words.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a huge problem for almost every manufacturer. Take a look at the HP DV series of laptops for example. Why are we picking on Apple and not the GPU manufacturers here?
maybe because Apple reneged on their promise. That's reason enough.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they admitted in court that it would not cost them anything to fix it, nVidia was paying the bill, but they still refused and they didn't even have an argument on why they were refusing. They just wanted to make it hard for their customer. RTFA, the description of how the trial went is comedy gold.
I've had enough horror stories with with Apple products around me to not be surprised, it seems that for every iphone they replace no-questions-asked they void the warranty on a few iMacs just to balance it out. Since the average apple customer thinks Apple can do no wrong, these incidents usually don't generate any fuss.
Good for the OP!
Re:Cool, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's up to Apple to replace the Apple hardware. They are then free to seek damages from the GPU manufacturer.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
dunno, but if I bought a lotus from lotus and it blew up I'd complain to lotus - not to the company that was contracted to do the piece that broke. it's not like brembo(or whatever) is responsible to consumers for toyotas brake problems..
toyotas brakes fail and people don't go complaining to brembo..
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this is Slashdot. Apple is that evil bad nasty walled-garden company that makes products those filthy commoners like...
No. I'm a Mac user, and Apple has always done the right thing if something went wrong with the hardware on my computer, but in this case they were wrong. They went back on a promise, they should be held responsible.
Re:It just works. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not an excuse. They are a "premium luxury" brand. If they couldn't do right by the customer with the parts they had on hand then they should have given the customer a better replacement.
THIS is what separates the real "quality" brands from the ones that are just over hyped by mindless consipicous consumers.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got it backwards.
It's the shills and apologists that breed haters.
If there were less mindless hype surrounding Apple, there would simply be less of a story here. Although if Apple just lived up to their supposed reputation there wouldn't have been any story at all.
Re:If You're Going To Make Promises ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They were footing the bill for Nvidia's screw-up
No, they were footing the bill for their own screw-up. The part may have been defective, and nVidia may have made it, but Apple approved it for use in their own products based on, clearly, insufficient validation that the part met their standards. In the real world, that's how it works.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple's rapacious greed knows no bounds.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In TFA, the author noted that one of the ironies was that Apple said in court that Nvidia would pay for the replacement. However, the thing that struck me was his revelation that he had received lots of contacts from people who have also had the same kind of failure and have paid Apple or trashed their machines. It seems pretty obvious that the reason Apple probably spent more than the cost of satisfying this guy's claim was to prevent a precedent's being set in a large class-action suit against them.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:1, Insightful)