Slashdot Mirror
Govt. Watchdog Group Finds Apple Misled Aussies On Consumer Rights
beaverdownunder writes "Apple has agreed to an agreement to ensure staff inform customers of rights under Australian consumer law. Despite the 2011 law requiring retailers to provide a refund option for faulty goods, and free repairs to items reasonably expected to still function properly (this part of the law is intentionally ambiguous), Apple steadfastly stuck to its AppleCare program, denying warranty repairs to units more than one year old (without the purchase of an extension) and only offering replacement or credit for DOA items. Apple has promised to compensate all Australian customers who were charged for repairs during the last two years, and make the terms of the law clear on the Australian Apple website. How this will affect company warranty policy is unclear — under the law, consumers could be entitled to repairs for the life of the product (barring damage, of course)."
I have several Apple products and in general I like them. Still it is sad for such premium products that the maker has to be strongarmed into agreeing to local law. The same happened in Europe where (and I think it is reasonable) products such as laptops should have a 2 year guarantee. Perhaps not on Applecare level (which is really good, I had to use it once and was happy with the service quality - a technician came to my home to replace my 27" imac screen panel), but at least a normal guarantee should be expected.
Of course Applecare becomes less attractive if it is just a one year extension and a higher service level. But frankly the products while well made are expensive enough to have the above mandatory local guarantee applied without hassle.
If the price of the long warranty is equal to the cost of the warranty to Apple, they'll just bake it into the price. If the warranty is a high margin item whose standard retail price far exceeds the actual cost to Apple, Apple can't just raise the price by the standard retail price of the warranty--raising the price shifts the demand curve and reduces the total number of Apple products sold (something that does not happen if the warranty is sold at the same retail price but as an optional item). Apple would instead be forced to raise the price by a smaller amount that is closer to the actual cost of the warranty, so as not to reduce sales too much.
Imagine that they were selling iPads but had a deal where you paid an extra million dollars to get them gift-wrapped. If the government forced them to gift-wrap every iPad, they could not raise the price by a million dollars.
If Australians want to know why they are constantly charged more for things, this is an example of such regulation.
Australians are charged more for things because charging Australians more for things produces a greater benefit than not charging them more.
Everything else is Stockholm syndrome. It's time to kill the beliefs about the fairness of the world.
Since this is just the latest in a sequence of run-ins for Apple with the Australian consumer watchdog, I doubt it.
One of the things I like about living in Australia is the consumer protection law. Any phone you buy on a 2-year contract with a provider is required to have a 2 year warranty, thanks to the government consumer watchdog. Recently, another company was fined for lying to people about their rights. Displaying 'No exchanges or Refunds' sign is against the law, since you are legally obliged to provide exchanges or refunds if a product is defective, or does not do what it claims to do.
The claim that 'the current law is, ironically, bad for consumers' is bullshit. It might be bad for the subset of consumers who buy products that work and who have no problems, if we assume that companies charge what they need to rather than the maximum the market will bear in the conditions. It is good for the subset of consumers who companies try to fuck when they sell unreliable crap.
To quote the Consumer Affairs Victoria (Australia) site example:
"Danny buys a plasma TV for $6000. It stops working after two years.
The store says they will not provide a repair or replacement as the TV only had a 12-month manufacturer’s warranty. They tell Danny he should have bought an extended warranty, which would have given five years’ cover.
However, it is reasonable for Danny to expect more than two years’ use from a $6000 TV. He is entitled to a repair, replacement or refund from the store."
I agree with Consumer Affairs Victoria. A $6000 TV should work for more than two years.
The end effect I can see of countries forcing long warranties on products [......]
They're not forcing long warranties on products. The law merely requires that a good should be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose - anything else is essentially fraud anyway.
Another possibility is that Apple would become more stingy with repair/replacement, which would be a shame as it's really nice to go in and have them say "well, this just isn;t working, have a new one".
They're not being generous, it's what Australian law requires them to do.