Slashdot Mirror
Macbook Owner With Defective GPU Beats Apple In Court
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 Apple promised to replace parts they knew to be defective for up to four years then they'd better step up. The court costs far outweighed the costs of replacing the GPU in his MacBook (and probably 100's of others). The cost of the bad press? It seems Apple has always been willing to test the patience of their customers' loyalties.
Apple charges top dollar for their hardware.
You would feel bad about "picking on them" for why?
Apple is responsible for the products it supplies. It is up to Apple to seek damages from Nvidia, not the consumers.
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.
Apple got slammed in court for one simple reason: they guaranteed replacement for 4 years. 3 years in, they reneged on their promise. Simple, blatant double talk.
The customer had the documentation to prove his case, and he won.
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.
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.
Nvidia settled a class action lawsuit about these GPUs.
(link: http://www.techspot.com/news/43614-customers-get-shafted-in-nvidia-class-action-suit.html)
I did in warrantied repairs for an Apple authorized service provider for two years. I can't tell you how many of these repairs apple picked up the tab on. I have never seen another computer company take as much responsibility as they have on this issue. The repair to replace the logic board that contained the defective GPU was a $1700 repair from a third-party authorized repair center and I did an average of 2 to 3 a week for 2 years.
Try stacking up those numbers against any other computer companies defective products in what they did to fix them
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!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
This is a huge problem for almost every manufacturer.
And Apple is one of the few who gets apologists jumping in to defend them by pointing this out.
Because it's up to Apple to replace the Apple hardware. They are then free to seek damages from the GPU manufacturer.
Don't be so blind. The customer purchased the computer AND an extended warranty from Apple. The GPU manufacturer said to all parties they will foot the bill for the defective hardware. The repair was free for Apple, but they decided to take this customer to court just because. Then, in court, they lied to the judge, saying that the hardware was different, etc. Apple is usually good with warranties, but notoriously for forcing their way on everybody, be it for good or bad. In this case, they were wrong, and behave like morons, and drag one of their customers to court. It is infuriating.
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..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
That's strange... I had this exact same problem and Apple replaced my motherboard for free when the time came. I wonder why they denied it for him?
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The terms of the class action suit were not favorable for the consumers, as your link states. For replacements from HP, everyone got the same Compaq budget 15" notebook, which retailed at around $270 at the time that the notebook owners received their replacements. Many of the consumers, including myself, had purchased notebooks which cost well over $1000. It is argued by some, that since prices have lowered since the initial purchase, the replacement notebook was comparable to the one initially purchased. This was untrue in my case. It also doesn't take into account that many of these notebooks were unusable during the years it took for a class action lawsuit to take place, and replacement notebooks awarded.
In my case, it is basically as if I purchased two $1200 notebooks, and didn't have them shipped to me until 3 years later. By the time I got them, I found out they weren't even the correct specs. Since it was 3 years later, I could have gotten much more for $1200.
The suit pitted the consumers against nvidia themselves, bypassing the computer manufacturers. I don't think this was an appropriate action. The manufacturers share some blame. They took the payoffs from nvidia to replace the GPUs under warranty, until the warranties ran out and it was all swept under the rug. At the time, the manufacturers knew the replacement parts were a time-bomb waiting to fail. They didn't care, because nvidia was funding them to do the repairs anyway. So, the manufacturers were making money by *not* replacing the GPU with a non-defective GPU.
In the case of HP, they lied about replacing the GPU with another defective GPU, and slapped a 90 day warranty on the service work. When I complained to them, and the BBB, they lied and said they replaced it with a different model GPU. My own eyes and lspci spoke a different story.
that hamburger....i think you are using it wrong
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.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Wow, a top of the line lemon. Good job!