Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued By Belgian Consumer Association For Not Applying EU Warranty Laws
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."
If they lose, basically all they have to do is do what they should have been doing already? No fine or anything? I'm surprised more people aren't trying to get away with it.
As a Belgian I've seen Test-Achats do many very good things in the name of the consumers to protect them over time. It's no surprise either that not everything that gets accepted in the US gets through in Europe. My question tho would be if the US has anything similar that actively defends the consumers? Non-governmental that is.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
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...
"If the consumer association wins it's case,..." Doesn't sound like a big if.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
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.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
Are you kidding me? I mean, the EU has some pretty solid consumer and worker protection laws that I like quite a bit, but let me get this straight, they mandate the duration of warranty? Does this mean secondhand sales are illegal? What about consumer products not intended to last two years, are those just banned outright?
Nobody says you have to buy Apple's products. Your opt-out is your wallet. I'm sure there are smartphones, computers, and tablets available with more favorable terms of warranty. What is the justification for this kind of heavy-handedness?
Thank God you've got France right there, or else you might not have enough cheese to go with all that whine.
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.
Belgium...
And everyone was so offended that they forgot about the lawsuit entirely.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
How about a battery that runs out of cycles in normal use after 15 months?
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Market dictates that if Apple products sold in EU countries come with 2 year Apple care and the ones in a non EU country do not, the ones sold from the EU countries should be worth more then the ones that are sold in non-EU countries if the warranty is included... meaning the price will have to reflect that and will likely be passed to consumers or a side market will be created. The same happened in the UAE where North American iPhones are sold here due to the lack of Facetime on UAE version...
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
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 - not that that is any excuse either. I agree, there are plenty of abusers out there who break their shit and then cry "warranty" - but there are plenty of other legitimate cases too. All of that said, I don't think a government has any business dictating warranty periods - it's something the free market should determine.
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 they may have fallen in line with the rest of the industry since I last looked).
There are quirks there e.g. if you bought an iPhone outright from an Apple store, you'd get the basic 1 year warranty - but if you'd bought the same phone from the same store on a contract, you'd have two years. And in the first case Apple is the retailer (your contract of sale is with them), while in the second case Apple is acting as a sales agent for the actual retailer (your contract of sale is with the telco).
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
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 overheating nvidia chipset that affected more than just me, it was repaired out of warranty but someone had to be sued first.
The U.S. economy would collapse for sure if everything didn't fail so easily and spending lowered, since all our stuff is made in China.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Longer warrantees directly translate to higher costs. So Apple just needs to add 50 euros to the price to cover the increased warrantee. But I wonder what a typical consumer would choose: higher price or smaller warrantee. I know that I always turn down the offers for extended warrantees... What's the diff? except in EU, no choice in the matter...
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
the free market
That does NOT exist.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
I think you miss the point. Most people know shit happens. The difference is in some countries Apple is supposed to deal with the shit, not the customer.
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.
No, I missed no point. You, however, missed the context and what I actually said in order to make some childish point about America/Apple/whatever.
Grandparent:
Nowhere does he say that Apple should pay. He says that the product shouldn't even be sold.
My reply:
Nowhere did I say that Apple shouldn't pay. The implication of my post is that his two units are either being used grossly improperly (my lewd comment about sex practices) but were in no way indicative of the phone in general, and that he certainly didn't present a compelling argument to ban sales of iPhones.
Does that help clear things up a little?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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
No. Just the opposite. If Apple will adapt ( finaly) their warranty they can never ever justify the 249 euro Applecare ( on a MacBook Air) for the third year.
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.
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.
I don't read AC A human right
I full agree,
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
@Random_Adam
Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
Ok my dodgy laptop keyboard, makes me sound like an idiot :(
They were supposed to be: reciently and paraphrase.
@Random_Adam
Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
Oh, are we trolling and yapping nonsense? Alrighty then:
US corporations shouldn't release such shitty products that constantly die within a few months to purposely defraud people and generate excessive amounts of toxic waste.
... 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 user error, the Reality Distortion Field is alive and kicking.
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).
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Apple doe the same in the Netherlands. The consumer organisation (consumentenbond) has warned Apple to inform customers about the minimum of 2 years of warranty wich is guaranteed by law (as opposed to the 1 year Apple is offering, and they also offer the 2 and 3 years extended 'AppleCare Protection Plan' at a price in the Netherlands).
The "consumentenbond" is contemplating legal actions if they don't change their ways:
http://www.consumentenbond.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuwsoverzicht-2012/apple-moet-duidelijker-zijn-over-garantie/
Some explanation about the 2 year warranty in Europe. This was a 1999 EC directive ( (Directive 1999/44/EC) . From 2005 it became law in a lot of European countries. Initially this directive was to curb cheap imports from Asia. Manufacturers - like Apple and others - were not targets. In fact , retailers are solely responsible for all warranty repairs. Now comes the tricky bit: in lot's of cases retailers were not covered for the second year warranty by their suppliers. That why they forced the unnecessary Applecare upon their clients. But now : If you buy an Apple product online they become a retailer , so they had to comply with the EC directive. Which they did not. The headline is somewhat misleading. It's not only Belgium. There are 10 other countries involved.
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!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So why is the iPad $US399 in USA and 399 euro in Europe? Why are they paying 25% more? They're made in China, so the shipping costs won't be much different.
So, you're saying that Apple products are so shitty compared to other products sold in the EU (including those made in china), that they can't afford to follow warranty laws.
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.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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 years. Even though technically the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault existed from new they already have strong evidence so the retailer still needs to show mistreatment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If only there was some way to measure the value added to a product and tax it...
That does NOT exist.
In a meaningless sense - akin to "there is no society without theft" - free market indeed doesn't exist. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the existing market more free than it is now (or combat theft, by the analogy used here).
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 amazon.de the ipad 2 is now 403 Eur, and they don't have cost 1. They do however have the extra shipping cost to put it in the hands of the customer. I suppose they just put on the typical price of the shops and have a higher profit margin.
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
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
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).
Dilbert RSS feed
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 the civil limitation period (6 years from the date of purchase/contract).
The EU Directive is supposed to harmonise the law across member states. For some it is a backwards step and doesn't address the problem of faulty and wasteful electronics. On the plus side I believe the burden of proof is lower under the EU directive, unlike in the UK where it switches from the producer to the consumer after the first year (ie: if it's borked you have to show it's not your fault - easy when it's electronic, not so easy with unreasonable wear and tear).
That said, I'm a little weary of how long the older, better built, technology is lasting - I'm 27 and my parents have held on to a microwave many years older than me. Like a true horror movie it looks, sounds and acts evil - I wish it would go away :(
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 courts to decide about it. I've seen decisions in Germany where faults occuring during the first two years were deemed normal tear and wear and the right for replacement or refund was denied. And many sellers (the law only decides matters between seller and buyer of a technical good, the manufacturer has nothing to do with it) have a section in their Terms and Conditions where they reserve the right to attempt up to three repairs first before replacing or refunding the good, and those have been considered within the limits of the law by the courts.
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?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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!
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...
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!
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 higher percentage of gross income per capita is spent on 'commie hobbies' like public healthcare, retirement and schooling, where in the US this is spent on credit card loans, a 3rd car or insane amounts of unhealthy food.
If you order from the US in Europe, customs will force you to pay VAT of 21% in Belgium. They have the right to ask a fine too, because you tried to dodge VAT, but I'm told that if you work via UPS or other official shippers, they have an aggreement to only add VAT.
http://svn.eadsware.com/blazer/blazer/ml.hpp
Actually, they're not. Apple stores are a different commercial entity from (for instance buying online). If you get a faulty laptop from the online store and try to get it returned under the saled of goods act, the stores won't take it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
make the existing market more free than it is now
how do you want to do that, without tilting even more in favor of the big bucks, and against the consumer ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
What if your device has faulty capacitors that fail just after a year? Even if the damage is easily visible when the device is open, just opening it will usually void the warranty.
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.
I quoted the relevant part of SOGA at Apple when my laptop battery failed after four years. I pointed out that their advertising said it would last 300 complete discharge cycles, and therefore the legally mandated 'reasonable length of time' was 300 discharge cycles. I called them at 4pm and the (free) replacement battery turned up at 9am the next day. Somewhat depressingly, I got much better service from this than any of the repairs or replacements I've had from them under warranty...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Legally, if a device breaks within 6 months after purchase it's outright faulty and the burden of proof is on the manufacturer/retailer. After 6mo it's a bit more complicated.
Without the possibility of big bucks buying regulations (the blame for which lies mostly on the design of the government), the "tilt" you mention is not a problem since it is basically of the same nature as say the "tilt" in favor of strong and handsome men on the "sex market". You should not automatically be entitled for a specific warranty period, but should be informed of it, and the businesses should have the opportunity to also compete on this factor. As far as misinformation goes, that should be taken care of by reputation mechanisms.
They DONT compete, all those businesses are in the hands of a select few. that's the core of the problem, and they get away with it.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
I've helped friends similarly who had broken ps3/xboxes and the retailer wouldn't do shit to help. As soon as you quote the relevant law they realise that they can't pull the wool over your eyes and give up.
Two things need to happen in the UK. We need better education of consumer protection laws, starting at school but also through government advertising and we to crack down on retailers who tell consumers it is out of warranty when legally it isn't.
Prices in the US online store are listed without any sales tax. All products sold in the EU have the VAT (sales tax) included into the price. The VAT in the UK is 20%.
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.
And what you forgot to tell people is that this is the case if the defect was present when the item was sold to you; and for the first six months it is assumed that this is the case, while after six months you have to prove it. So it is not "if the device fails before that time", it is "if the device fails before that time because of a defect that was present at the time you bought it, and you can prove it".
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.
In the UK, basically Apple would have to change their wording from "instead of the one year warranty you get a three year warranty", to "instead of the one year warranty plus your legal rights, you get a three year warranty plus your legal rights". They may have done that already.
I'd also say that it isn't "a product the buyer didn't really need", it is just "less than the buyer thought they would get". For example, if you take a MacBook from the UK to the USA and it breaks down there, you can have it fixed in the USA and AppleCare covers it. Your UK legal rights obviously wouldn't cover that, you'd have to wait until you are back in the UK. Or if the MacBook breaks and it was your fault but Apple cannot prove it, then Apple Care will fix it but your legal rights wouldn't cover that.
The number of sellers on a market at a specific moment of time is irrelevant. There may even be only one seller, and that is not a problem, as long as this seller does not prevent others from competing by coercion. Any non-coercive "monopoly" or "oligopoly" stays as long as the consumers allow it by voting with their wallets. Any so-called "anti-competitive" economic measures taken by a seller necessarily bring some direct or indirect benefit to a certain group of consumers (though maybe not always on the same market), and if the potential newcomers cannot offer something better, that's their problem.
the first merchant misrepresents the quality of his products in a trade and gets shot through the head.
But THAT is the free market at work! In any case, whether or not one believes in free markets - I simply don't think that this is an issue that should be regulated by government. If companies produce shitty products, and other companies don't want to compete by producing non-shitty products, and customers encourage this behaviour by continuing to buy shitty products, everyone is getting one they deserve. Government should stay out of it, and focus on what it SHOULD be doing, such as building infrastructure, providing for national defense and not a whole lot else.
"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."
Are you sure this is the standard implementation across Europe? In the UK it's defined as the reasonable life as the product, which would normally be more than 2 years, and in fact the UK sets a maximum of up to 6 years meaning past that initial 6 months you have another 5.5 years on more expensive consumer products to file a claim if you can prove fault in the product. The UK had this in place before the EU's 2 year warranty came into play, and so hasn't changed it's law because it already offered stronger protections.
The European law came in to remove the disparity where some EU states had a more US style attitude of "Aww, your product broke after 6months? tough fucking shit", whilst some had UK style stronger consumer protection laws.
I was under the impression that how that 2 years is implemented is country specific and that some European countries had gone as far as just giving a 2 year version of the afformentioned 6 month rule in the most consumer friendly cases and so some countries do actually assume a product should be defect free for 2 years.
Your explanation is a great clarification to what has been posted but I don't think it's quite correct- certainly in the UK it's more than 2 years at least, and I'm pretty sure elsewhere it is a full 2 years of assumption against consumer fault and in fact the EU's consumer-facing documentation on it does actually imply that it should be a 2 year period of assumption against consumer fault too:
http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/64/index_en.htm
I think it really depends which implementation of the EU law you're living under, but certainly 2 years is only the baseline, and the 6 month thing doesn't seem to apply to every EU country.
So you exercise every single NAND flash memory cell to within inches of its rated life in a year? I don't think so. One bad flash chip with only 10K good cycles in it instead of 100k or 1M will take longer than a year to find.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
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.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
It seems that with many companies merely mentioning SOGA is enough to get them to do the right thing. I suppose it makes more sense for them to send you a new battery that probably costs them less than £5 than to risk you taking them to small claims court.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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!
If it is an item that is reasonably expected to last for five years.
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Especially here in Ontario(probably most other provinces also) Canada, the big 3 carriers lock you into a 3 year contract with the iPhone if you get one subsidized. The thing only has a 1 year warranty yet you are basically stuck with it for 3 years. I had an iPhone 4 and I was on my 3rd one in the 1 year warranty period. The first one had a problem where the sleep/wake button became jammed and didn't work.
The second one had a problem with the vibrate motor and it got jammed also, thus didn't work at all. I got the 3rd one near the end of the 1 year warranty and sold it to someone else. Then I bought the 4S. Now, I like the iPhone and the OS but at least the 4 seems to have a lot of problems, or I'm unlucky. I did not miss treat my phone by being overly abusive to it but yes it did have a few accidental drops(in a case). In any case, I did not drop it ON the sleep/wake button. IMO, I shouldn't be on my 3rd phone in less than 1 year, especially when you are locked into a 3 year contract for a subsidized phone.
That sounds like Rogers here in Canada. They cover user damage on the phones they sell EXCEPT for the iPhone.
you believe in fairy tales do you ? Economic theory makes a few impossible to achieve assumptions.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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.
Wait! & vs. &?!
Unfortunately a lot of modern electronics are poorly fabricated, often caused by using horrible lead-free solder.
There's nothing wrong with lead-free solder as long as you don't cheapskate on either the solder itself (which should ideally be of the 4% silver variety) or the equipment to apply it (which should be capable of bringing it to a high enough temperature in a relatively short period of time).
Unfortunately, a lot of people try to get away with both cheaper solder (which needs a higher temperature) and cheaper equipment (which struggles to get up to temperature quickly enough to avoid damaging components), which is a recipe for disaster.
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 this). Most things (i.e. consumer editions of Windows and most features of most versions of Linux) work acceptably with a broken DSDT, so there is no legal reason why they would have to fix it (the machine is fit for the purpose it was sold for even with such a problem).
Because the prices quoted in the EU include your sales taxes, while the US prices don't have the sales taxes included.
Because the cost of doing business in the EU is higher (and the threat of the EU commission randomly charging a large fine against you for silly reasons).
Because the EU consumer protection agencies demand a longer warranty than you get in the US (2 years vs 1 year).
Because the labor cost associated with having a presence in the EU is higher (higher minimum wages, longer vacation times, shorter working hours per week, etc).
I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Apple's products, especially accessories, are cheap crap and IMO designed that way in order to force the consumer to buy replacements. What other excuse can they possibly have other than greed for having non-standard video out ports on laptops requiring an adapter w/ a flimsy cord and that costs at least $30 to buy(probably 30 to make) to display the output. Their charger cords fail constantly also and they will make any excuse not to cover these things under warranty.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
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.
It wasn't cycled daily. Spent most of its time sat there plugged in (crap chargers can screw batteries if they are left on charge all the time, but that IMHO is an inherent fault with the charger, not "the expected life-span of the battery". I shouldn't have to manually remove the battery from my laptop every time it gets full.
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 this). Most things (i.e. consumer editions of Windows and most features of most versions of Linux) work acceptably with a broken DSDT, so there is no legal reason why they would have to fix it (the machine is fit for the purpose it was sold for even with such a problem).
I'm not sure you can call the DSDT an "optional feature" given that every modern OS (including the one it shipped with) requires one in order to make proper use of the hardware.
The "legal reason" why they should've fixed the DSDT is that it didn't correctly reset the fan controller after the laptop was returned from S3. This meant that the fan ran non-stop at full speed after coming back from S3 which made S3 somewhat less useful. I never tested this under Windows, but I see no reason why it wouldn't have caused a problem since nothing else is going to reset this hardware after resuming. The machine was only "fit for purpose" if the purpose didn't include standard features such as handling power management correctly.
Before you point out that the literature probably didn't explicitly say that power management would behave correctly, I'd like to remind you that most laptop advertising literature also doesn't mention that the DVD drive will correctly read DVDs, that the VGA output will correctly drive a monitor, etc. These are all things, like power management, that the consumer just expects to work properly. I can accept that software has bugs, but the complete failure of the vendor to provide any kind of support to their customers, especially when their customer arguably does their job for them (debugging the problem, patching the offending code and sending them the patch) isn't acceptable.
(Which brings me onto another reason why I won't be touching Acer kit again - they flatly refused to comply with the Windows licence agreement which says I can return the unused licence for a refund).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Yeah but Europe is really happy to bitch about that. The US on the other hand should try follow their own laws (or the Geneva convention) for a while before exporting.
If most people agree that an electronics product should last for at least 2 years, then what possible point would there be in "letting the free market decide"?
You now have an opportunity to show how great at chess you are.
Well, that explains. Thanks for clearing that up.
Depends on the kind of the economic theory. I guess you're, as usual in such cases, imputing to me some assumptions about perfect blah-blah-blah which I never made.
EU still sticks to dictating what people and companies can do within it's own borders.
No they don't.
This meant that the fan ran non-stop at full speed after coming back from S3 which made S3 somewhat less useful. I never tested this under Windows, but I see no reason why it wouldn't have caused a problem since nothing else is going to reset this hardware after resuming. The machine was only "fit for purpose" if the purpose didn't include standard features such as handling power management correctly.
My understanding is that DSDT can contain OS-specific sections. They may only have set up the Windows-specific section correctly. Or they may have supplied Windows chipset drivers that ignore the DSDT and cause the system to work regardless. Also Windows (like Linux) has a method of instructing it to ignore the system DSDT and use one provided by OS configuration; the preinstalled images and recovery images they supplied may have had such a table installed by default.
Acer are, I think, within their rights to assume that if you wipe their OS image and install your own, you are on your own with regards to whether it actually works or not.
The rules only apply to flights that start or end in the EU. So it's still limited to the EU.
My understanding is that DSDT can contain OS-specific sections. They may only have set up the Windows-specific section correctly.
Correct. There was no OS-specific section in this instance - the code to correctly poke the fan controller simply wasn't there at all.
Or they may have supplied Windows chipset drivers that ignore the DSDT and cause the system to work regardless.
That's possible, but does mean that a wipe/reinstall of windows (hence without their kludge) will result in the same issue.
Also Windows (like Linux) has a method of instructing it to ignore the system DSDT and use one provided by OS configuration;
Yes, suffers the same issue as above.
Acer are, I think, within their rights to assume that if you wipe their OS image and install your own, you are on your own with regards to whether it actually works or not.
There are specifications for a reason. I'm happy to say "not the vendor's problem" if it's just a case of the Linux (or any other non-supplied OS) being buggy. I'm not happy to agree that the manufacturer is in the clear when the _machine's firmware_ provides an ACPI that doesn't work correctly. If you're going to ship some hardware, you either make sure that it works correctly (that includes making sure the public APIs such as ACPI work correctly), or you make it very clear to the customer that it it is "experimental" or "beta release". If you do the former, and your customer finds a bug, it is your obligation to fix it. This obligation is exceptionally low-cost where your customer has actually done your job for you and just wants you to compile a new firmware image.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
If you get legal expenses paid then why does it matter how much they are relative to the product?
In fact, the higher the better - it might act as a deterrent to companies who sell shitty goods and then try to weasel out of their obligations.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It does not have to be working for two years. It just means that they need to replace and/or repair if it doesn't.
Electronic companies already know in great detail the money they need to spend. When the time went from one year to two years, the companies already knew how high the cost would be.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There's none, I'm afraid.
On the other hand, you can design a device that does not fail as quickly, then you won't need to have as many replacements in stock.
From the various complaints I've read on the internet, either the Apple system fails somehow in the first year or just keeps chugging along. Yes, I've also heard several complaints when something died in the 13th month. Just change it; a few $10,000s won't matter much to you, Apple.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
From the Apple Store: "De voordelen van het AppleCare Protection Plan zijn een aanvulling op de wettelijke rechten van de consumentenwetgeving die van kracht is in je rechtsgebied. " That's the same as in the UK Apple Store where it says "AppleCare Protection Plan benefits are in addition to any legal rights provided by consumer protection laws in your jurisdiction.".
This makes it absolutely clear what Apple is selling when you buy AppleCare: You have your one year warranty, you have whatever legal rights consumer protection laws in your country give you, and AppleCare provides the difference between these two rights and three years of warranty (plus a few other things). And I think it is obvious that Apple can sell whatever additional warranty they want to sell, at whatever price they want to sell it, and customers have the right to buy it or not to buy it. The important thing is that Apple states correctly what you get for your money.
Two things need to happen in the UK. We need better education of consumer protection laws, starting at school but also through government advertising and we to crack down on retailers who tell consumers it is out of warranty when legally it isn't.
And if we had better education then you wouldn't have written the second part as you did. First, you are confusing "warranty" with the Sales of Goods act. "Warranty" is whatever the manufacturer gives you voluntarily, which is whatever they decide, according to whatever rules they decide. The Sales of Goods act gives you statutory rights, which may be less or more than the manufacturers warranty, and it is the store which is responsible.
The important things are: The store is responsible to fix defects that were present when the item was sold, for a reasonable amount of time, and "reasonable" depends on the nature of the product. And after six months, _you_ have to prove that the product was defective when sold to get it fixed, while during the first six months, the store would have to prove that the product was not defective.
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.
"Defective" doesn't mean "not working". Let's say a car manufacturer uses engines that will normally last for 200,000 miles. Unfortunately, the engine in the car that you bought has a tiny hair fracture which will cause it to fail after 100,000 miles. That engine will work without apparent problems for many years, but it is defective from the day you buy it. Or lets say the fan in your MacBook runs too slow, which means the wear and tear on the computer is higher than it should be, and as a result it fails within two years of normal use. The defect (fan running too slow) was there from day one.
And this is why no-one likes Americans.
For those of you who actually can think for yourself without spouting the "pinko commie" bullshit, for a start this rule is imposed on every merchant, not just "non-local" ones. Second, if it's anything like the one where I am in New Zealand, it also allows for the relevant statutory agency to make a decision on what is considered a reasonable lifespan based on many factors - for example a $1100 iPhone (that's what it costs here) would likely be covered by consumer law for 5+ years on the basis of the price of the product, the manufacturer's claims to quality, and the purpose for what it was designed (yes, our law includes price as a factor for whether you can expect it to last longer). A $40 Nokia crap-phone you're likely covered for about what the manufacturer said, and that's it. You want to charge $1000+ for your product, you best make damn sure it's worth it, especially if you justify it based on perceived quality.
To claim that it's another EU protectionist trade barrier is also bullshit. It's standard consumer protection laws in the entire European and Asia Pacific regions. Just because you North Americans will tolerate companies selling you shit and claiming it's gold doesn't mean the rest of the world will.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Disputes Tribunal. Filing fee is ~$20, and their judgement has the full force of law, so can't be ignored - offhand I think taking legal representation is also a no-go. Also, our courts can order the loser to pay the winner's reasonable expenses.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Heh, my NZ carrier won't even let you get mobile insurance on the iPhone, and that's a paid extra.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
In the case you purchased outright from Apple, Apple is the retailer and you'd get exactly the same coverage under the law, as the same devices are being sold by others (under Apples blessing) on 2 year contracts.
I also live in NZ. The problem here is that the reasonable lifespan is decided on a case by case basis making it very difficult for a consumer to go through the process, with the manufacturer arguing their case against you.
Apple has not been taken to court yet. A cease and desist letter has been sent to the Apple European headquarters in Ireland by 11 consumer organizations. Apple has 1 month to reply. If they ignore this cease and desist letter, this thing could go to European Commession but most likely they (Apple) will be sued on a national level.
In Europe, most prices already include sales tax, while it in the US seems to almost never be included on the sticker price.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
If you live in an European country where the EC Directive is in place, a battery is covered by the 2 year warranty. This consumable thing is a manufacturer invention , to cover up the low quality batteries in laptops. If you look closely at the definition of the word consumable , it says : That may be depleted or worn out by use. The latter thing is interessing because that's what exactly happens to a harddisk. But the manufacturers are not excluding harddisks, aren't they. Of course , some states in Europe could have an exclusion clause for batteries but it's certainly not in the EC Directive and not in country where i live.
potential newcomers cannot offer something better, that's their problem
Ok, so potential newcomers cannot offer something better. And agreed it is their problem. Now the incumbent seller has a monopoly. Through this monopoly this incumbent seller amasses huge wealth by charging the premium it commands as per demand and supply. Using this huge wealth, it signs exclusive contracts with all kinds of suppliers (including potential employees).
Which makes it more and more likely the potential newcomers will not be able to offer something better. Further increasing the wealth and power of this incumbent. Further making it more and more likely the potential newcomers will not be able to offer something better.
All this is fair and square, except the consumer / customer / society as a whole suffers now because this incumbent refuses to make progress that could have been made if there were any healthy competition. Others cannot step in because of the exclusive contracts this incumbent has signed with all kinds of business raw materials.
So free market leads to society suffering.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Indeed. But once one person's through, you've got something approximating precedent.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".