Slashdot Mirror
Apple Revises Warranty Policies In Europe To Comply With EU Laws
ccguy writes "Apple revised its warranty policy in Italy last year after being hit with a €900,000 fine for not complying with an EU-mandated two-year term. The company has today revised the terms of its warranties in France, Germany and Belgium, specifying that customers are entitled to repairs and replacements of their Apple products for a full two years after purchase, and not just one as previously stated. No word yet on when the rest of the EU will see those changes, but it would now seem to be just a matter of time before other countries get the new terms as well."
That is interesting. Does that mean that the Reality Distortion Field is limited in time? Or does every new Apple product have its own RDF that can't overlap and if that is the case, why do the newer one have priority?
Apple products last pretty long. The main problem is that Apple tried to sell the overpriced extra 1-year warranty extension. Having a two years warranty, people are less likely to purchase that extra.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
I'm not totally familiar with the law in Italy, but if it follows the same type of law that is common in the EU then it is not warranty per se. It usually means that if something breaks the vendor has the responsibility to fix it _or_ prove that the problem was not caused by the vendor. That is very different from how most warranties work.
They're not glued, the lifespan is more than 2 years, and nothing takes 6 months to get from factory to consumer in the mobile phone business.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The article, as many articles before, confuses "manufacturer's warranty", which is unchanged, and "legal rights against the seller". Apple as the manufacturer can give any manufacturer warranty they like in the EU, and they give the same warranty as any other manufacturer. The seller, that is the shop that sold the goods, whoever that seller is, has legal obligations to make sure the product works for a reasonable time.
The only thing that has changed is that Apple makes more clear on the page where they explain their one year manufacturer's warranty, that you have other rights against the seller. If you look at Dell's website for example, there is not the slightest trace of such information, even though Dell doesn't sell through any store, so if you buy a Dell product, then they are _always_ the seller (whereas Apple is sometimes the seller, and Apple stores also sell other company's products, in which case that Apple store also is the seller responsible to handle your legal rights).
The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire).
How can something be obsolete after a few months if it's expected to be around for years?
The fact that it's still working for you doesn't mean a thing. My mother-in-law still has a Galaxy S1, which does what she needs and is just a bit too slow for my tastes, though I'm a power user.
Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates? Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?
So if they are not glued then why are they not offering battery replacement?
They offer battery replacement
Well, fine, but don't forget that many of the cool new features don't work on the iPhone 4. You are not much better off than someone who just gets new features via app updates for their older Android device.
My friend is still using his Galaxy S which is of about the same vintage as your iPhone, a bit older perhaps. Still gets feature updates, still happy with it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
B*****m
Language!
No he is right. I bought a mac pro in 2008. I hoped it would last 5 years, so than the price was okay. But ever yyear it would break down once or twice. And the applecare only lasted for 3 years. After 3 years they put in a new motherboard (new is relative, it was made in 2008), the nvidia blew it self up twice, after overheating. And the power supply broke down 3 times. Instead of putting in a new better one, the always put one in, that was build in 2008, even 3 years later. And the repairs only lasted for 6 months, than I could come back.
So now that mac pro is laying somewhere, and I won't ever buy another piece of shit hardware from apple ever again.
While it's nice and all, upgrades aren't mandatory or related to warranties on the hardware.
If the phone is still as capable as it was when sold then it's fine.
It's not just a phone. It's a network connected computer and should not be used or at least not connected to any form of network if it's no longer supported and receives security updates.
The problem was that a significant number (enough for the EU govenerment, AKA 27 goverments, to take notice) of Apple devices couldn't make it to the 2 year limit required by law.
You can spin it however you like but that fact remains.
Apple choose to ignore the law as they didn't want to support people after a year (speaks highly of their confidence in the hardware) and they got burnt.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the problem was not that they don't support their hardware accordingly to the law, the problem was that they were not good enough at informing customers about it.
The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire).
How can something be obsolete after a few months if it's expected to be around for years?
That's how people wit performance mania think, the cheesy car analogy would be: If you buy a Mercedes today and BMW comes out with a model tomorrow that has 16 more horsepowers your Mercedes is hopelessly obsolete and you have to upgrade ASAP.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Any of you wonder why the text reading “revised the terms of its warranties in France, Germany and Belgium” links to an article that instead says: “Apple has updated its policies”? And why said article doesn’t link to those policies but instead (for Germany at least) links not to a promised PDF but an article at ifun.de?
http://www.ifun.de/apple-kommuniziert-gewaehrleistungsanspruch-deutlicher-41275/
In which is stated that Apple adds this paragraph to its product pages in the Apple Store:
“In Deutschland haben Verbraucher gemäß BGB innerhalb von zwei Jahren ab Übergang der Ware Anspruch auf eine kostenlose Reparatur, einen kostenlosen Austausch, einen Rabatt oder eine Rückzahlung durch den Händler, wenn das gekaufte Produkt zum Zeitpunkt des Übergangs nicht dem Kaufvertrag entspricht.”
My human translation: “In Germany—according to BGB [Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch/civil code]— customers have the right, within tow years of transfer of the goods, of free repair, free replacement, a rebate or repayment by the vendor, if the purchased product does not comply with the terms of the purchase contract at the date of transfer.”
They do this because with the Apple Store (be it online or brick and mortar) they are the vendor. This, EU-mandated, german warranty applies to the vendor. If you buy an Apple product at Random-Computer-Hütte and it breaks within one year you can either call the manufacturer Apple upon their 1-year warranty or go to the vendor. If it breaks after a year but within two years you’ll have to deal with that vendor. If you buy at an Apple-run store manufacturer and vendor are the same. And if it breaks after two years you could use Apple-care if you bought it.
Still, Apples warranty gives better protection. With the EU-warranty, if the product breaks after 6 months the burden of proof that the product did not comply with the terms of the purchase contract when you bought it, is on your side. And if you buy AppleCare you not only get Apple warranty for three years instead of one, but free phone support on top of that.
I'm still using the iPhone 4 I bought in 2010, and am looking forward to the big iOS7 UI overhaul to take it through year 4. A relative of mine
Still? I'm still using my Nokia from 96 or thereabouts. Works fine, not with the original battare though.
Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates? Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?
To a similar extent that Apple does, yes. Allow me to explain.
If you install iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 you don't get all the features. A lot of stuff just doesn't work, it needs certain hardware or a faster CPU or something.
Similarly with a Galaxy S you don't get all the latest Android features, you get a subset via updates to Google's apps. When they update Maps or Gmail you get those updates. You also get updates to Samsung apps, including their desktop suite (equivalent of iTunes).
So yes, the Galaxy S is still updated and still a damn good smartphone.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nice, I am glad they are doing something for you Apple guys. Ive watched a number of friends carrying around auxiliary plug in batteries due to the primary one not being able to hold a charge for very long.
I can change the battery in my phone whenever I please, in fact the dock came with an extra battery to swap in. FYI thats the Samsung Charge.
It runs like this: For two years, the vendor (not the manufacturer) has to warrant that the sold object keeps running except for normal tear and wear and the usual refills. The problem is that within the two years, the buyer can misuse the object in a way which causes the object to break preliminary. Thus there arises the necessity to determine who is responsible if the sold object breaks. The law states, that within the first six month, it's assumed that the fault causing the preliminary break was already present at the time of the sale, except proved otherwise (thus the vendor has to prove that the buyer mistreated the object). Within the remaining 18 month, it is assumed that the buyer mistreated the object, thus the buyer has to prove that the object was faulty at the time of the sale.
If the responsibility of the preliminary defect is put to the vendor (either by default within the first six month, or by proof of the buyer), the sale can be reversed, thus either the vendor hands back the money, or replaces the defective object with another one. The vendor still can ask for a repair attempt, but it's up to the buyer to agree.
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
The problem is that Apple acts as both the manufacturer and the seller if you buy from Apple Store (online or retail). As a manufacturer Apple provides a one year warranty and still do so, that was never the issue.
Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.
However as a seller Apple also is responsible for hardware defects, and this is something that they have to do for two years; but only if you actually bought from them. If you bought from a reseller then it's the reseller that has that responsibility. That responsibility is very limited in comparison to a traditional warranty and as a customer you essentially has to prove that the defect was the result of manufacturing. As a seller you are also responsible for explaining this to the customer.
Wrong. A seller may provide an additional warranty beyond the legally required manufacturer's warranty. That in no way alters the manufacturer's duty under EU law to provide a 2 year warranty.
Apple did not explain this well enough to customers, and that was what the problem was all about.
Wrong. The problem was that Apple (the manufacturer) does not provide a manufacturer's warranty of 2 years as required by EU law. They insisted it should only be 1 year, in flagrant defiance of the EU laws. The fine they received was a minor wrist slap, but would probably have been repeated in heavier increments if their illegal stance had continued.
You are buying them wrong
You're wholly dependent upon the forward compatibility of the underlying OS for those updated apps to be available, though.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
if it's expected to be around for years?
maybe the users think it should be. But apple wants users to buy as many as possible.
A way to achieve this is perceived obsolescence. --> apple releases as many new versions as it can get away with (so users are pushed to perceive their only one year old device as 'old').
(it isn't only apple that does it)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.
Nonsense. It applies to sellers.
In the case of Apple, the manufacturer is a big and world wide known company. But in reality, most products are built by companies that you have never heard of, and that you would never be able to contact. If I go to the local supermarket and buy some electronic goods, made in China by god-knows-who, a manufacturer's warranty would be completely useless to me, because my chances of getting things fixed by a company somewhere in Shanghai are practically zero. Instead, I go to the seller, and they fix it.
Just as an example here, the Galaxy S has Android 2.3 at best, assuming the carrier authorised it; that means that none of the APIs outlined here are included, and apps which use those APIs (or which expect changes in behavior in existing APIs) may not operate properly. Given that most Android handsets are still on 2.x, develoeprs have wisely stepped carefully in implementing the 4.x APIs of course, but it will be an issue in future. (Current releases of many apps misbehave when running on the original iPhone for this reason.)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".
That's exactly correct, but unfortunately much too complicated for most people who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line, and are just incapable of describing a legal situation correctly without muddling everything up.
So the problem in Italy was: When you sell products, you don't usually have to tell people all about their rights; they are supposed to figure that out themselves. BUT if you sell extended warranties, or insurance, or similar things, then you have to tell people exactly what they are getting for their money. And to tell them exactly what they are getting, you must tell them what rights they would have without extended warranty or insurance, what rights they would have with extended warranty or insurance, and what they get for their money is the difference. (Actually, what they get is slightly more; AppleCare will fix problems if the seller goes bankrupt, if you move to a different country, or if the seller is some bastard who won't fix the problem without going to court, even though they legally have to).
Would you rate, e.g., the Galaxy S4 as low to mid-end?
Monkey spunk. Your contract is with the seller, not with any of his suppliers, subcontractors etc.
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/consumer_topics/buying_goods_services_en.htm
"Always try to contact the seller first: under your 2-year guarantee, the seller is liable if the product turns out to be faulty or not as advertised. "
I do hope you're not a practicing lawyer.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."