Slashdot Mirror


The iPhone Is Guaranteed To Last Only One Year, Apple Argues In Court (vice.com)

Reader Jason Koebler writes: Last month, Greg Joswiak, Apple's VP of iOS, iPad, and iPhone Marketing, told Buzzfeed that iPhones are "the highest quality and most durable devices. We do this because it's better for the customer, for the iPhone, and for the planet."
But in a class-action court case over the widespread premature failure of tens of thousands of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus devices, Apple argues that the company cannot guarantee any iPhone for more than a year. In a motion to dismiss, Apple argued that "to hold Apple's Limited Warranty substantively unconscionable simply because Plaintiffs expect their iPhones to last the length of their cellular service contracts 'would place a burden on [Apple] for which it did not contract.'"

435 comments

  1. Intentionally poor headline by chispito · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Intentionally poor headline by micahraleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1 this. This headline is a lie. People will stop reading this website.

    2. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"

      "the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"

      Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.

      And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.

    3. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also missing from the context: "for warranty purposes". Essentially what Apple is arguing in court is that they are not under obligation to repair or replace a device under warranty after a year. That seems rather standard.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a novel solution: Don't get an iPhone?

    5. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A lot of Android phones don't even get updates for a year, much less have a year's warranty.

      All the cellphone makers are like this.

    6. Re:Intentionally poor headline by PIBM · · Score: 1

      It depends were you live. Where I live, the warranty is defined to be at least as long as you could expect it to live related to the object value. If you can expect a cheap android device to last 2-3 years, then you can safely assume your higher priced iphone to last much longer and automatically have both Apple & the seller responsible for covering the warranty.

    7. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being someone without a choice... I cringe every time I read that question.

    8. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well if you read the article or the summary, Apple is not saying their devices only last 1 year. They are saying their warranties are 1 year which is standard for the US. But please show me the wide ranges of cell phones that has more than a 1 year warranty in the US. Also you realize that when you enter into a contract with a cellular carrier that is not Apple, that is the legal definition of 3rd party contract. What you are asking for is that your contract with Verizon, AT&T, etc whatever overwrites Apple's warranty to which Apple didn't agree. It's the same as saying when you get a 5 year auto loan for your new Honda (3 year limited, 5 year powertrain) from your bank, your 5 year bank loan should supersedes Honda's warranty and force Honda into a full 5 year warranty.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Intentionally poor headline by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.

      Nobody is forced in to any cellular contract.

    10. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I stopped reading it years ago and never comment. They can't fool me with click bait like this.

    11. Re:Intentionally poor headline by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It depends were you live. Where I live, the warranty is defined to be at least as long as you could expect it to live related to the object value. If you can expect a cheap android device to last 2-3 years, then you can safely assume your higher priced iphone to last much longer and automatically have both Apple & the seller responsible for covering the warranty.

      And that's why Apple's warranty for Europe and Australia and other places that have such laws include the cost of AppleCare in the price.

      You can buy a 3 year warranty from Apple - they call it AppleCare. The key word is "can buy". Or your government may force you to buy it (via a law saying warranties have to be 3 years).

      It pays to note these things, because when people complain about how expensive stuff in Europe is, it generally isn't - the price in Europe generally includes taxes (sales, import) (added at register in the US), extended warranties (optional in the US) and currency exchange.

      TINSTAAFL. If the laws say you have to provide a 3 year warranty, the manufacturers are more than happy about it since it means an extended warranty sale that's guaranteed.

    12. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      This is a lawsuit in the US so 1 year is the standard. If it were Europe, Apple would have to cover for at least 2 years.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:Intentionally poor headline by jandrese · · Score: 1

      This damn article has been making the rounds all over the internet and every single time people immediately point out that the headline is garbage yet no "editor" ever has the balls to fix it. This is what is wrong with modern journalism.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    14. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Raistlin77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"

      Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.

      But Apple didn't stuff you into that 2-year contract, your shitty wireless provider did, and you happily accepted it to get your grubby little paws on a shiny new iPhone. Why is your failure to make a good decision Apple's problem?

      This is no different then an auto warranty. Do you see any class action suits against automobile manufacturers for not repairing out-of-warranty vehicles that just happen to still be within their initial 4, 5, 6, and 7-year loans? Of course you don't. But by your logic, your vehicle should be guaranteed by the manufacturer to stand up to the length of the loan.

      There is no justification for this whatsoever - the life of the phone and its manufacturer's guarantee have absolutely nothing to do with the length of the contract or finance agreement that your dumb ass got yourself into. Perhaps you should make better decisions about managing your money, like not locking yourself into a bad contract or finance agreement for a phone that you can't afford in the first place.

      And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.

      Then don't buy one every year. And if you don't like the 1-year warranty that Apple provides, maybe you should just not buy an iPhone. What was that? You say NO manufacturer offers a warranty longer than 1 year? Hmph, imagine that.

    15. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People will stop reading this website.

      Uh huh, sure they will! I also heard people will stop voting for Republicrats.

      It's going to happen. Any day now. I know people have been saying it forever, but really, it's about to happen for real this time because of reasons!

    16. Re: Intentionally poor headline by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I hear people are going to start voting big for Pirate Ninja Zombies because they are so fed up! Check us out on Facebook and Steam...

    17. Re: Intentionally poor headline by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      All my $100 Android phones lasted several years though.

    18. Re:Intentionally poor headline by war4peace · · Score: 2, Informative

      What was that? You say NO manufacturer offers a warranty longer than 1 year in the USA? Hmph, imagine that.

      FTFY.

      The EU enforces a two year guarantee for sold consumer goods.
      http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...

      This is also called "conformity guarantee" and makes the seller legally bound, regardless of what the manufacturer states. the manufacturer could say "we offer one year guarantee" but the seller MUST offer a two year guarantee regardless.
      If the manufacturer is also the seller (e.g. sells the product directly to end-users through a webshop), then they need to offer a two year guarantee anyway.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    19. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well if you read the article or the summary, Apple is not saying their devices only last 1 year. They are saying their warranties are 1 year which is standard for the US. But please show me the wide ranges of cell phones that has more than a 1 year warranty in the US. Also you realize that when you enter into a contract with a cellular carrier that is not Apple, that is the legal definition of 3rd party contract.

      Putting gas in my car is using a 3rd party service and does not alter the vehicles warranty, so that argument is rather moot. And the fact that all smartphone vendors have colluded so that none of them offer a reasonable warranty doesn't make this any more acceptable. Quite frankly, they should all honor a two-year warranty, which matches the collusion of 2-year contracts.

      What you are asking for is that your contract with Verizon, AT&T, etc whatever overwrites Apple's warranty to which Apple didn't agree. It's the same as saying when you get a 5 year auto loan for your new Honda (3 year limited, 5 year powertrain) from your bank, your 5 year bank loan should supersedes Honda's warranty and force Honda into a full 5 year warranty.

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.

    20. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android phones are no better. They are obsolete at 18 months and get no further updates except under threat of lawsuit. Apple devices from 2012 were the last ones made obsolete.

      It's semantics, few electronics have a warranty over one year, and that is by design. If people replace phones every year, then why bother making the claim they last one year. Hell you are lucky if the warranty is longer than 90 days.

    21. Re:Intentionally poor headline by redmid17 · · Score: 2

      No but they did make defective iPhone 6 and 6s models. That is what the class action lawsuit is about. I don't particularly care about the phone contract vs apple warranty argument -- though I do think it would be smart for apple and ATT/Sprint/et al to address that -- as much as I care about defective products. If the axle on an out-of-warranty car cracks during normal use because of a casting/fabrication error, the manufacturer better damn well replace it.

      We know this because Apple is currently fighting a class-action lawsuit over the widespread premature failure of tens of thousands of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus devices due to a design flaw that's become known as "touch disease."

      That's in addition to the structural defect that let them bend so easily. The phones clearly have an issue caused either by the design or by the manufacturing. Apple doesn't want to bite the bullet here, but I would be very surprised if they didn't end up being liable.

    22. Re:Intentionally poor headline by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In this case it's a design flaw. It's the worse kind of problem for manufacturers, because potentially every unit sold is affected and needs to be fixed/replaced. Apple could be faced with repairing or replacing hundreds of millions of phones.

      I imagine they will do what they normally do. Deny deny deny and then quietly roll out a free repair programme "at their discretion" (i.e. how much noise you make in the Apple Store). By the time it happens most people will have given up and bought a new phone anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Intentionally poor headline by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's why Apple's prices in Europe and Australia are a rip-off. It doesn't cost them what AppleCare costs to extend the warranty, unless the failure rate is insane... Oh, wait.

      Your logic is faulty though. If they have to factor the price of an extended warranty into the retail price because their quality control is crap, it will reduce their sales. They pick the sales price not on manufacturing cost + margin, but on what they calculate will maximize profit. Being forced to move away from the maximum profit sweet spot is clearly going to result in less than maximum profit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Putting gas in my car is using a 3rd party service and does not alter the vehicles warranty, so that argument is rather moot.

      And what does that have to do with your assertion that you agreeing to a contract with a company that is not Apple should force Apple into terms that they didn't agree.

      And the fact that all smartphone vendors have colluded so that none of them offer a reasonable warranty doesn't make this any more acceptable. Quite frankly, they should all honor a two-year warranty, which matches the collusion of 2-year contracts.

      Assertion without evidence. They offer a 2 year warranty if you are willing to pay. And the standard in Europe is 2 years but it is not in the US.

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.

      Some offer some a longer warranty. Some do not. The point is that the bank does not have the ability to change your warranty which is what you are asking the court to do with Apple.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    25. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they may not get updates for a year, but at least they continue to function.

    26. Re:Intentionally poor headline by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't there any provision in law for design flaws? In most European countries if there are design flaws the liability extends well beyond the warranty period, because the warranty is only for manufacturing defects that result in premature failure. Design flaws are considered a failure to disclose the true MTBF.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      +1 this. This headline is a lie. People will stop reading this website.

      Unfortunately not.

      Sigh...

    28. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      "Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"

      +100 Informative.

    29. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU enforces a two year guarantee for sold consumer goods.

      And then they complain that the prices are too high, as if this extra year is free.

    30. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      That's why Apple's prices in Europe and Australia are a rip-off. It doesn't cost them what AppleCare costs to extend the warranty, unless the failure rate is insane... Oh, wait.

      You do understand that some of the price difference in Europe and Australia are dictated by those countries and not Apple right? For example US prices do not reflect any sales tax. So the price of an iPhone in the US varies by city, state, etc. In the UK, and Europe, tax is included in the price. Tariffs, exchange rates, etc. contribute to price differences.

      Your logic is faulty though. If they have to factor the price of an extended warranty into the retail price because their quality control is crap, it will reduce their sales. They pick the sales price not on manufacturing cost + margin, but on what they calculate will maximize profit. Being forced to move away from the maximum profit sweet spot is clearly going to result in less than maximum profit.

      That is reliant on your assertion that the price difference is due solely to the warranty. It is not.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    31. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when you say "bullshit semantics", does that mean you're a climate change denier too?
      Because you know, Apple does care for our planet and is part of the club of people who are always right.
       
      But when you call bullshit on a company of "good people", doesn't that make you alt-right? Now your mask has fallen off, aren't you just a misogynist, racist, homophobic, fascist, climate change, neo-Nazi?

      Well I'm considered one because I don't believe Tesla will ever deliver a car for the people and because I want that my government stops giving presents (subsidize) to people who are able to buy expensive cars.

    32. Re:Intentionally poor headline by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      When you have a device without any user replaceable parts, you really cannot guarantee a product more than a year. As they are hundreds of parts which could fail, causing a full failure. That said, Most people own devices that will last well beyond that guarantee. A guarantee, is just formality to make sure the devices doesn't come with faulty parts. Much like the old 48 hour burn in rule for a PC. If the parts last over a year then they will probably last much longer. However Apple is in the game for money. After the 1 year mark, good components could die out from excessive usage, thus having a guarantee after that will cut into their bottom line.

      So if you are running a full website off your phone... And you burn out the Wi-Fi after a full year, that really should be your fault.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    33. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes but the plaintiffs must prove certain elements in court in the US. They cannot merely assert that because there was a flaw therefore Apple must extend their warranties to cover the flaw. All manufacturers must do this. For example, nVidia had to replace many laptop video cards years after warranties expired after settling a class action lawsuit. Europe has far stronger consumer protection laws.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    34. Re:Intentionally poor headline by chispito · · Score: 2

      which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.

      And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.

      Who forced you into a contract? Or do you mean you were forced into a contract as that was the only way to get a brand new, top of the line phone? Because for me, the answer is to buy a cheaper phone on Amazon or eBay, pay month to month, and if I drop the phone a few times and have to buy another, I come out way ahead.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    35. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      What's your point? That gently-used devices last longer than heavily-abused ones?

      My acquired-for-free salvaged iPhone 4S also lasted for about 4 years before I replaced it, and still functions decently for the rare occasions that I need a second device.

      On the other hand, I've broken a Craftsman wrench on its first day of use.

      The key here, as noted in the summary, is that Craftsman is expecting to replace tools at any time, and they factored that replacement into the initial price of the tool. As a company, Sears (now Stanley Black & Decker, apparently) has chosen to be contractually responsible for replacing the tool if or when it breaks. Other companies and other brands have made other choices, but they're all willing participants. Apple is arguing that if they were held to the terms of a carrier contract, they would be bound to a contract in which they have no voice, since the contract is between the end user and the carrier.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    36. Re:Intentionally poor headline by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      When you have a device without any user replaceable parts, you really cannot guarantee a product more than a year.

      This argument makes no sense. How does a lack of user replaceable parts in any way affect what term a manufacturer can or cannot guarantee a product for? After all, they can just replace the entire device.

    37. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      "Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"

      "the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"

      Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.

      And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.

      Since a "warranty" is essentially another BOM component with an associated "cost", do you really think that Apple should withstand the burden of DOUBLE the potential cost of warranty work for no additional increase in the product's MSRP?

      Thankfully, there is already a solution: AppleCare+. It provides a relatively low-cost solution to doubling the warranty period, and even provides reduced/flat-fee coverage for CUSTOMER-INDUCED damage, such as $29 for screen repair, or $99 for ANYTHING else. Run over your iPhone X 512 GB with a tank? $99. And of course, if the failure is due to defects in materials or workmanship, those repairs/replacements are at no charge to the customer.

      And Apple, unlike so many other companies, gives you "concierge" service when your have AppleCare, rather than fighting tooth-and-nail to find ways out of honoring the extended warranty. There are a googolplex of examples all over the intarwebs of Apple going above-and-beyond for their AppleCare-protected users.

    38. Re:Intentionally poor headline by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Isn't there any provision in law for design flaws?

      Yes. If you are sold a device that is not "fit for purpose", then the law allows for you to get reimbursed. This is separate from warranty considerations.

      The court case, however, is about the warranty.

    39. Re:Intentionally poor headline by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      This is what is wrong with modern journalism.

      This is one of the things, sure, but this is hardly a "modern" phenomenon.

      Another thing that's wrong with journalism is people who only read the headlines, and people who think that the headlines are intended to be a neutral summary of the article. They are not -- headlines are, and always have been, a sales tool.

    40. Re: Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Android phones are no better. They are obsolete at 18 months and get no further updates except under threat of lawsuit. Apple devices from 2012 were the last ones made obsolete.

      It's semantics, few electronics have a warranty over one year, and that is by design. If people replace phones every year, then why bother making the claim they last one year. Hell you are lucky if the warranty is longer than 90 days.

      Exactly.

      My previous (and first) iPhone was a 4s, It came out in 2011, virtually the same day as Steve Jobs left this plane of existence.

      It received iOS Updates until LAST SEPTEMBER (i.e., for 5 years). And still sits in a desk drawer, fully functional, but forgotten...

      And actually, there is very little reason for an electronic device to have a warranty period over 90 days. After that, you are past the 92% point of the "infant mortality" period of defects in materials and workmanship, and after that, it's either excessive wear, or more often than not, customer-induced failures, neither of which should be covered under a standard warranty.

    41. Re:Intentionally poor headline by syn3rg · · Score: 1

      This is the year of Linux on the desktop!

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    42. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      What was that? You say NO manufacturer offers a warranty longer than 1 year in the USA? Hmph, imagine that.

      FTFY.

      The EU enforces a two year guarantee for sold consumer goods.
      http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...

      This is also called "conformity guarantee" and makes the seller legally bound, regardless of what the manufacturer states. the manufacturer could say "we offer one year guarantee" but the seller MUST offer a two year guarantee regardless.
      If the manufacturer is also the seller (e.g. sells the product directly to end-users through a webshop), then they need to offer a two year guarantee anyway.

      And did you ever stop to think that that is EXACTLY one of the reasons that certain products are more expensive in the EU?

    43. Re:Intentionally poor headline by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Not when it is exactly the same product, no.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    44. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 0

      No but they did make defective iPhone 6 and 6s models

      And I believe they "made good" on that, too, like they have on other occasions.

      https://www.apple.com/support/...

      https://www.apple.com/support/...

      And in the case of the "touch disease", Apple is striking a compromise; since it seems like the issue only happens with phones that are dropped onto a hard surface:

      https://www.apple.com/support/...

      So, what's your point again? Or did you even have one?

    45. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The EU enforces a two year guarantee for sold consumer goods.

      Yeah. Or technically, it's more like you have a statutory warranty which has a minimum coverage and duration that comes without terms and conditions. Then they're free to offer various kind of additional free or paid warranties that can have terms, for example cars have some where having the car for service/check-up is required for the extended warranty to be valid and get free repairs. They can also offer you other services like free road assistance that isn't strictly required by law. For the most part though you can just throw away the "warranty registration card" though because it's bullshit, you're 99.9% covered by law and the 0.1% is just an excuse to collect personal data. Make a warranty claim, show receipt, get free repair/replacement. No registration necessary.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    46. Re:Intentionally poor headline by taustin · · Score: 1

      I think a "fit for purpose" argument could be made that phone sold under a two year contract should last two years.

      I also have doubts that Apple was completely unaware that their phones would, in fact, be sold under two year contracts when they agreed to sell them to the carriers.

    47. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      That's why Apple's prices in Europe and Australia are a rip-off. It doesn't cost them what AppleCare costs to extend the warranty, unless the failure rate is insane... Oh, wait.

      Your logic is faulty though. If they have to factor the price of an extended warranty into the retail price because their quality control is crap, it will reduce their sales. They pick the sales price not on manufacturing cost + margin, but on what they calculate will maximize profit. Being forced to move away from the maximum profit sweet spot is clearly going to result in less than maximum profit.

      OMFG!!!

      If you think APPLE's QC is "crap", you OBVIOUSLY haven't bought ANY Android phone, or have been unusually "lucky".

    48. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      This damn article has been making the rounds all over the internet and every single time people immediately point out that the headline is garbage yet no "editor" ever has the balls to fix it. This is what is wrong with modern journalism.

      Exactly!

    49. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people are, it is clearly stated.

    50. Re:Intentionally poor headline by swillden · · Score: 1

      people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract

      Forced? Really? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    51. Re:Intentionally poor headline by MyrddinBach · · Score: 1

      LG just recently changed the warranty on their G6 from one year to two years.

      So there is at least one manufacturer that offers a >1 year warranty.

    52. Re:Intentionally poor headline by swillden · · Score: 1

      I also have doubts that Apple was completely unaware that their phones would, in fact, be sold under two year contracts when they agreed to sell them to the carriers.

      I don't see how that's at all relevant to Apple. What financing or other arrangements are made between users and carriers is none of Apple's business. Apple communicated their actual warranty to both carriers and users and made no claims -- to anyone -- that they would warranty phones for the period of some contract between third parties.

      I don't think your argument would hold water even if the users were buying the phones from Apple directly with two-year financing from Apple. When you buy a new car from Ford, there's no expectation that the car will continue functioning for the duration of the 72-month purchase contract. You *do* get various levels of warranty on various parts of the vehicle, but those are all completely independent of the financing terms.

      Would you argue that someone who bought their car / phone for cash should get less warranty coverage than someone who financed it? This is silly. The one thing has nothing to do with the other.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    53. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have a Moto G, first generation. It was released in 2012 and gets weekly or fortnightly updates from LineageOS and runs almost the latest version of Android (8 hasn't been ported yet, but should appear soon) and still runs all of the apps that I've tried.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    54. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Claim it is the users fault and charge $149 to fix a problem that was a manufactures defect. Maybe that was the point but with your head so far up apples ass you could not get it.

    55. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      In the UK, the Consumer Rights Act (which largely just does what the EU requires) states that the device warranty is largely irrelevant and that the device must continue to work for the expected lifetime of such a device or it can be returned to the seller for a full refund. If Apple wants to argue that 1 year is the expected lifetime of an iPhone, then that's fine, but they'd better expect all of their competitors to put that in their adverts.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    56. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That is a separate argument. There are two arguments here: 1) Should Apple repair devices out of warranty due to a design flaw. There are rules and case law about this and the plaintiffs have prove certain elements. 2) Should a consumer entering a contract with a company that is not Apple should be able to change Apple's warranty provisions. Generally under the law, the answer is no. That's like saying your 7 year car loan from your bank should force Honda to make your warranty 7 years regardless of what Honda wants.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    57. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Not when it is exactly the same product, no.

      But it ISN'T the same product; it has an ADDITIONAL COST. The Inclusion of an "Extended Warranty" (AppleCare+), which Apple would typically charge $129 for in the U.S.

      Are you REALLY that stupid. Wait, don't answer...

    58. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      No Apple is arguing that their limited 1 year warranty is the standard in the US to which is expressly written. Defects that extend past warranty periods are dealt with other case law. For the most part, the plaintiffs have to prove a number of different things to overcome this.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    59. Re:Intentionally poor headline by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Your logic is faulty though. If they have to factor the price of an extended warranty into the retail price because their quality control is crap, it will reduce their sales. They pick the sales price not on manufacturing cost + margin, but on what they calculate will maximize profit. Being forced to move away from the maximum profit sweet spot is clearly going to result in less than maximum profit.

      Hmm... Even though there may be many things combined together as margin, isn't profit a part of those things??? I'm stunned by this extremely obscured maths.

    60. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Jaime2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By your reasoning, the cell phone carriers should be on the hook for the extra year, not Apple, as it was the carriers that decided to sell a device with a one year warranty along with a two year contract. In that case, this court decision was correct to not hold Apple accountable.

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.

      Apple backs up it's claim of durability with its reputation. Organizations like Consumer Reports rate Apple as a manufacturer with lower defect rates that others in its segment. In theory, a longer warranty is less valuable on a durable product than it is on a shoddy product. If the product was "perfectly durable", then a warranty would be entirely superfluous.

      Also, you mentioned cars. It's quite common for a car to be sold with five year financing (or a four year lease) and a three year warranty. A warranty isn't magic, it simple trades predictability for economy. It's always cheaper (statistically) to not buy a warranty, but some people can't handle the financial disaster that would come along with being one of the "unlucky ones", so they buy the warranty. The length of the warranty has nothing to do with the quality of the product, it only represents the owner's tolerance for risk. The price of the warranty (in the case of phones this is baked into the purchase price) is dependent on the reliability of the product.

    61. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the fact that all smartphone vendors have colluded so that none of them offer a reasonable warranty doesn't make this any more acceptable. Quite frankly, they should all honor a two-year warranty, which matches the collusion of 2-year contracts.

      Assertion without evidence. They offer a 2 year warranty if you are willing to pay. And the standard in Europe is 2 years but it is not in the US.

      The reason it is longer in Europe is due to them wanting a "high level of consumer protection." There are certainly times when US law could take a lesson from others. This would likely be one of them.

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.

      Some offer some a longer warranty. Some do not. The point is that the bank does not have the ability to change your warranty which is what you are asking the court to do with Apple.

      Two-year contracts are now pretty much the de facto standard, and tend to define consumer expectation. Every auto manufacturer could limit the factory warranty on every car sold in the US to one year regardless of consumer expectation or loan lengths, if they wanted to be a greedy dick about it. Third party terms or product demand have far less to do with my argument than the bullshit claim that Apple makes a durable product. If they do, then prove it with a decent warranty that conforms to consumer expectations.

    62. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Then don't buy one every year. And if you don't like the 1-year warranty that Apple provides, maybe you should just not buy an iPhone. What was that? You say NO manufacturer offers a warranty longer than 1 year? Hmph, imagine that.

      Actually, just ignore it. Warranties are always bad for the consumer in the long run. Put your current phone in a drawer instead of trading it in. That's your warranty - if the new phone breaks, pull out the old one. Then, send the broken phone to a third-party repair service to be fixed for less than the cost of two phone bills. I wish Apple would offer a discount for downgrading to a 90 day warranty.

      Financially responsible people don't need warranties. They do create a incentive for manufacturers to not push out garbage, but a robust after-market warranty ecosystem will do the same thing. If an after-market warranty for a product costs a bundle, don't buy that product - it's crap. If the after-market warranty is cheap, buy the product but don't buy the warranty - you probably wouldn't have needed the warranty anyways.

    63. Re:Intentionally poor headline by jollespm · · Score: 1

      You do understand that a warranty provided by a manufacturer is a balance of risk, cost, and profit right? From a high level, offering a longer warranty is larger risk, which therefore demands a larger cost of the product, even if it's the same exact product.

      I just bought a new Samsung washer and dryer which came with a 1 year warranty. A week later Samsung sent me a note saying if I want a 5 year warranty, I can pay them a couple hundred dollars more. I guess I should be complaining that Samsung should be giving me a 5 year warranty from the get go because it's the same washer and dryer.

    64. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And did you ever stop to think that that is what people want? I would rather have an increased price to maintain a guarantee of quality than a silent degradation of quality to maintain a price.

        And don't tell me that bullshit about how it will drive people way from the brand because:

      1) This selling 5 oz less product in the same container to keep the price shenanigans is why nobody trusts brands anymore in the first place.
      2) Here you are still paying ridiculous amounts of money for shiny iThings like Jeebus himself told you to do it.

    65. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1

      "Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"

      "the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"

      Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.

      And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.

      Since a "warranty" is essentially another BOM component with an associated "cost", do you really think that Apple should withstand the burden of DOUBLE the potential cost of warranty work for no additional increase in the product's MSRP?

      If they actually make a durable product, then there should be a minimal concern from Apple from a burden standpoint.

      If the product is actually so bad that they can't even offer a reasonable warranty included with that obscene price tag, then I don't have any reason whatsoever to believe their claims of making a durable product. And regardless of standard business practice, demand should not be a justified reason to fuck over the consumer any chance you can.

    66. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody else notice that TheFakeTimCook's responses lately have a distinct lack of their formerly ubiquitous caps lock and 'HATERS' mania?

      It's almost as if his manager told him to tone it down a bit. Or perhaps put a different set of hands on the keyboard.

    67. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1

      people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract

      Forced? Really? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      This reminds me of a friend of mine who was looking for a house to buy and wanted to sign up for a month-to-month lease on their apartment. The landlord came back with a monthly cost 2.5x higher than the standard 12-month price.

      Forced. Coerced. Convinced. Pick whatever word you want to describe little or no options left on the table that make financial sense.

    68. Re:Intentionally poor headline by redmid17 · · Score: 2

      The solutions offered are not accepted by the people in the lawsuit. The touch disease and bend disease are almost certainly part and parcel.

      If you want me to lay my point out again, people are suing because apple is liable for defective products and their redress was found non-existent or wanting. There is a class action suit in Canada too. Then you get the anonymous genius bar people saying apple was selling refurbished units with the same propensity to fail.
      If you want to stop being a failed troll, you can even read the lawsuit: https://www.scribd.com/documen...

      Of course this is all explicitly mentioned and would easily be extrapolated or inferred by someone with a human-sized brain and the ability to breathe through the nose instead of the mouth

    69. Re:Intentionally poor headline by GNious · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile I've had a European Apple drone try to convince me that my device wasn't covered, because the sales-slip said "Apple Ireland" ... It's a shitty company that tries to weasel out of anything and everything, incl laws.

    70. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I consider longer warranties on electronics more of a statement that they're not using shoddy components or workmanship. There's lots of ways to cut corners on electronics that will still (fairly) reliably last 90 days, but have a decent chance of failing within a year.

      There's also the fact that there's an awful lot of mechanical elements in a phone - buttons, jacks, case, and structural components, all of which have a very different failure profile than solid-state electronics.

      Basically - yeah, 90 days will "shake out" the majority of "duds" in any well-made electronics - and so a longer warranty that excludes abuse costs the manufacturer very little, *assuming* their products are as well-made as they claim. A short warranty thus looks an awful lot like an admission that they're selling junk.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    71. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      "Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"

      "the highest quality and most durable devices" =/= "Reality"

      Bullshit semantics are bullshit when their claims of durability cannot stand up to a longer warranty, which is more than justified when most people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract.

      And, no replacing a phone every year isn't the fucking answer either.

      Since a "warranty" is essentially another BOM component with an associated "cost", do you really think that Apple should withstand the burden of DOUBLE the potential cost of warranty work for no additional increase in the product's MSRP?

      If they actually make a durable product, then there should be a minimal concern from Apple from a burden standpoint.

      If the product is actually so bad that they can't even offer a reasonable warranty included with that obscene price tag, then I don't have any reason whatsoever to believe their claims of making a durable product. And regardless of standard business practice, demand should not be a justified reason to fuck over the consumer any chance you can.

      That's a ridiculous argument.

      Do you really think that Apple would have the satisfaction ratings they get, year after year, if their hardware was shit?

      The point is, they have calculated their average warranty-burden over time into the purchase price. And at this point, they have a pretty good idea what that number is.

      They offer an Extended Warranty that, for a reasonable price, even covers customer-induced damage at a reduced/flat-fee cost.

      If you don't like those terms, you are free to purchase any one of a number of other phones. No one forces anyone to purchase an iPhone, FFS!

    72. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Immerman · · Score: 2

      A reputation doesn't back a claim of durability - it only offers a track record on past products that may support their claim. Backing requires collateral.

      As you say, a warranty on a perfectly durable device would be entirely superfluous - which means it would cost the manufacturer nothing to offer it. And many cheap, durable goods do indeed come with a lifetime warranty for exactly that reason.

      Basically the warranty period is a company's estimate of how long the device will last before replacing failures starts to unacceptably cut into their profits. If they say they're selling an extremely durable device, then let them put their money where their mouth is and include a legally-binding commitment to replace or repair it if it fails anyway.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    73. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The solutions offered are not accepted by the people in the lawsuit. The touch disease and bend disease are almost certainly part and parcel.

      If you want me to lay my point out again, people are suing because apple is liable for defective products and their redress was found non-existent or wanting. There is a class action suit in Canada too. Then you get the anonymous genius bar people saying apple was selling refurbished units with the same propensity to fail.

      If you want to stop being a failed troll, you can even read the lawsuit: https://www.scribd.com/documen...

      Of course this is all explicitly mentioned and would easily be extrapolated or inferred by someone with a human-sized brain and the ability to breathe through the nose instead of the mouth

      Just because something is written in a Complaint doesn't automatically make it true. Complaints are ALLEGATIONS, not always based on FACTS. And when lawyers with Class-Action payoffs dancing in their heads, Complaints are FAR more often than not, exceedingly overblown.

      And besides, just because Apple's remedy is "rejected" by the Complainants, doesn't mean it will be "rejected" by the Court. And since this is simply an "Amended Complaint" and not a JUDGMENT, then I would imagine that simply hasn't happened one way or the other, yet.

      That's what TRIALS are for. If you can look up a lawsuit, you should already know that. But apparently, you don't.

      NOW who's the Pinhead?

    74. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1

      By your reasoning, the cell phone carriers should be on the hook for the extra year, not Apple, as it was the carriers that decided to sell a device with a one year warranty along with a two year contract. In that case, this court decision was correct to not hold Apple accountable.

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim. Ironically enough, some auto manufacturers are now offering warranties that are longer than your average car loan or lease (a.k.a. durability), so your example is a rather poor one to use for comparison.

      Apple backs up it's claim of durability with its reputation. Organizations like Consumer Reports rate Apple as a manufacturer with lower defect rates that others in its segment. In theory, a longer warranty is less valuable on a durable product than it is on a shoddy product.

      Guess I don't follow your logic with that theory, since I believe a warranty is used to demonstrate the actual durability of a product. I have non-electronic products warrantied for life with bulletproof warranties, which a lifetime warranty is not superfluous; it tends to define quality and confidence. I have electronic products that are warrantied for up to a decade. Yes, customer support is critical, but I also want a company to stand behind their products. If Apple actually has lower defect rates and they already charge a lot for their product, then they have even more of a reason to stand up and support their product claims with minimal warranty concern by offering a standard 2-year warranty.

      Yes, consumer expectations are mostly now dictated by the average cellular agreement length, but that has little to do with who is "on the hook". If you're going to try and stand above the rest of the market by marketing a durable product, then back up your claim. Besides, the ask here is very reasonable.

    75. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      They're going beyond that. They're claiming it's not reasonable for people to expect more than 1 year out of an iPhone. The offered warranty is really irrelevant to the legal question of how long a reasonable person should expect a product in that price range to last.

      As for the Hondas, if a significant fraction of Hondas failed in a particular way just outside of warranty such that a repair nearly as much as the car was worth, consumers might very well win a lawsuit alleging a defect.

    76. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Anybody else notice that TheFakeTimCook's responses lately have a distinct lack of their formerly ubiquitous caps lock and 'HATERS' mania?

      It's almost as if his manager told him to tone it down a bit. Or perhaps put a different set of hands on the keyboard.

      Sorry. Same hands. I just go in and out of phases with caps for emphasis. Just like with calling-out the Haters (which is mostly reserved for ACs, anyway).

      And if Slashdot would get with the damned program and install a rich-text-editor, I would probably stop using caps for emphasis completely.

      Sorry to dissapoint. I really DO wish Apple would pay me for all this, honestly! But so far, nada...

    77. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      Sure, except in this case, it's not (primarily thanks to T-Mobile).

      I might have agreed with you 4 years ago, but not anymore. I paid upfront for all phones on my Sprint account, and got a hefty discount on the monthly bill as a result. You can either get the (widely advertised) 2 year contract plans, or you can bring your own phone and get a discounted value plan. I signed up for a value plan which ended up about $15/line less than the contract plan, but I don't get discounted phones.

      In short: You don't NEED a contract. You just need to save money and not take out invisible loans on discounted hardware.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    78. Re: Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I consider longer warranties on electronics more of a statement that they're not using shoddy components or workmanship. There's lots of ways to cut corners on electronics that will still (fairly) reliably last 90 days, but have a decent chance of failing within a year.

      There's also the fact that there's an awful lot of mechanical elements in a phone - buttons, jacks, case, and structural components, all of which have a very different failure profile than solid-state electronics.

      Basically - yeah, 90 days will "shake out" the majority of "duds" in any well-made electronics - and so a longer warranty that excludes abuse costs the manufacturer very little, *assuming* their products are as well-made as they claim. A short warranty thus looks an awful lot like an admission that they're selling junk.

      I agree with you about the mechanical parts. That's why Apple's warranty of 1 year is a reasonable compromise, IMHO.

    79. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Than AT&T (or whoever the carrier is) can make the service work for the phone for the remainder of the contract. If the phone won't boot they won't be able to, so the remainder of the contract falls.

    80. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Basically the warranty period is a company's estimate of how long the device will last before replacing failures starts to unacceptably cut into their profits. If they say they're selling an extremely durable device, then let them put their money where their mouth is and include a legally-binding commitment to replace or repair it if it fails anyway.

      Nope, Hyundai has taken exactly this mindset and used it to make people believe their cars are better. They offer a 10 year warranty to give the impression of durability, then they bake a few more dollars into the price of the car to pay for the fact that their cars are, in fact, no more reliable than average and they will be paying out more in warranty claims. Tire companies do this too; their warranties are so useless that they can put whatever they want on the paperwork and people will use it as a proxy for quality when it is no such thing. Try going into the store with a set of 80,000 mile tires that are worn after 60,000. They'll tell you that they'll only give you $25 back (the prorated value) if you show them that you had the alignment checked for $100 at installation.

      iPhones have so much profit baked into the retail price that the warranty term tells us nothing. They could afford to replace every single one of them and still not lose money.

    81. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering they denied the antenna flaw, denied that laptops were deforming \ failing to work, deny deny deny, you might as well just state that the user is on the hook for 99 bucks should it break and leave the manufacturing out of it.

      Until the lawsuit comes out, of course, and they offer you a $20 in store credit

    82. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (even assuming your statements are true, which they're not)

      So because a platform has quality issues, it affects the the quality of another one is what you're saying. ;)

    83. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a ridiculous argument.

      Do you really think that Apple would have the satisfaction ratings they get, year after year, if their hardware was shit?

      Apple could market an iRock, and the lemmings would stand in line for it. Sometimes ratings mean less and less when blind worship maintains a 5-star rating. Apple has produced you're-holding-it-wrong products before, and it's not even made a dent in their ability to market hype and fashion. Ironically enough, when sales start to drop, often one of the first things a manufacturer does is extend the standard warranty as a sales tactic. This tends to define exactly how minimal a financial impact that action is, and how easily Apple could afford to offer it.

      The point is, they have calculated their average warranty-burden over time into the purchase price. And at this point, they have a pretty good idea what that number is.

      People often favor certain auto manufacturers due to longevity and durability of the product. Most cars come with at least a 3-year warranty, and many come with much longer warranties, which are often used to sell hardware. Suddenly, you find your favorite auto maker changed their warranty to one year based on warranty burden. Would you still feel confident in the product, or would you have a pretty good idea as to just how durable the product now is? My argument is the exact same; if you're going to claim you make a durable product, then back up that claim with a reasonable warranty, plain and simple.

      If you don't like those terms, you are free to purchase any one of a number of other phones. No one forces anyone to purchase an iPhone, FFS!

      As far as everyone else out there, a lot of the market follows Apple's arrogance; if Apple charges the customer for durability and gets away with it due to little impact on demand, then others follow suit. We've seen it time and time again. Doesn't make it right by any means.

    84. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      And did you ever stop to think that that is what people want? I would rather have an increased price to maintain a guarantee of quality than a silent degradation of quality to maintain a price.

      That's not my experience at all. Most people go for the lower cost. Airlines have been forced into this for years. People could pay $10 more for a seat, but they go with Spirit because the price on the web site is slightly lower. The experience is horrible, people complain, and yet they still go for the lower cost when making their next purchasing decision. The same is true for consumer goods, where picking (for example) a toaster people pick the lower cost, even if it is only slightly less and with far lower quality.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    85. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Guaranteed to last only one year" is a more verbose synonym for "one year warranty." Who ever thought otherwise?

    86. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 0

      The reason it is longer in Europe is due to them wanting a "high level of consumer protection." There are certainly times when US law could take a lesson from others. This would likely be one of them.,

      Yes but since this happened in the US, what do you expect Apple to do? Their warranty is covered under US laws.

      Two-year contracts are now pretty much the de facto standard, and tend to define consumer expectation.

      No they used to be the standard length of service. They are not anymore. While you can get a 2yr contract, there are more options and some cases, no annual contracts.

      Every auto manufacturer could limit the factory warranty on every car sold in the US to one year regardless of consumer expectation or loan lengths, if they wanted to be a greedy dick about it.

      And what you are advocating is that regardless of what the auto warranty says, my bank loan overrides the warranty even though the manufacturer never agreed to the terms. My 7 year car loan automatically forces my auto manufacturer to warranty my car for 7 years.

      ?Third party terms or product demand have far less to do with my argument than the bullshit claim that Apple makes a durable product. If they do, then prove it with a decent warranty that conforms to consumer expectations.

      By your argument, any company that has made a "durable" product must offer unlimited lifetime warranties. A decent warranty for most electronics is 1 year and limited.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    87. Re: Intentionally poor headline by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      All my iPhones have lasted several years too. I still have an original iPhone kicking around here somewhere that will power up, and would still talk to AT&T's network if they hadn't turned off the 10 year old 2G radio technology it uses.

      The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    88. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Australia, apple were forced to do a 2 year warranty.

      So the retail price went up by the cost of apple care.

      Nothing comes for free.

    89. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      They're claiming it's not reasonable for people to expect more than 1 year out of an iPhone. The offered warranty is really irrelevant to the legal question of how long a reasonable person should expect a product in that price range to last.

      That's an uphill argument considering that most electronics have a 1 year warranty. My first cell phone failed 14 months after I bought it. It wasn't an iPhone.

      As for the Hondas, if a significant fraction of Hondas failed in a particular way just outside of warranty such that a repair nearly as much as the car was worth, consumers might very well win a lawsuit alleging a defect.

      Regardless of what defects that a Honda might have, does your auto loan with your bank force Honda to extend their warranty automatically? That's what some people are arguing. Certainly the plaintiffs are free to present evidence in court about defects and what Apple should do about them but their contracts with cell phone carriers should not override Apple's warranty by default.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    90. Re:Intentionally poor headline by war4peace · · Score: 1

      THE reason they're more expensive is EU VAT which applies to all goods manufactured outside of the EU and which don't fall under any of the free trade agreements.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    91. Re:Intentionally poor headline by swillden · · Score: 1

      people are forced into a 2-year cellular contract

      Forced? Really? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      This reminds me of a friend of mine who was looking for a house to buy and wanted to sign up for a month-to-month lease on their apartment. The landlord came back with a monthly cost 2.5x higher than the standard 12-month price.

      Forced. Coerced. Convinced. Pick whatever word you want to describe little or no options left on the table that make financial sense.

      Given that a high-end smartphone is a luxury, not a necessity, none of those words apply.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    92. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Guess I don't follow your logic with that theory, since I believe a warranty is used to demonstrate the actual durability of a product.

      If we follow your idea, then the courts would be clogged with cases of impossible to meet guidelines. A Kitchen-Aid stand mixer might last 30 years but that would require Kitchen-Aid to fully guarantee all their mixers for 30 years. My computer lasted 5 years before the power supply blew; my buddy's same model is still going after 10 years, I should sue.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    93. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 2

      So DOUBLING the warranty is a huge burden, but AppleCare+ is low cost and an incredible value? Which of those is true?

    94. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My mothers iPhone lasted a week (She smashed it into pieces)

    95. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      No but they did make defective iPhone 6 and 6s models. That is what the class action lawsuit is about. I don't particularly care about the phone contract vs apple warranty argument -- though I do think it would be smart for apple and ATT/Sprint/et al to address that -- as much as I care about defective products. If the axle on an out-of-warranty car cracks during normal use because of a casting/fabrication error, the manufacturer better damn well replace it.

      Why should the manufacturer be liable at all? If a defect is discovered after a product is released, why is the manufacturer the one that should have to pay to fix the defect? If I intentionally sell apples with worms in them then that's fraud and I should be liable. If I unintentionally sell apples with worms in them then to maintain my reputation I should probably make it right but there is no reason that I should legally be required to. Same with defects in products. If the defect is unknown, why should the burden to fix the defective product be on the seller and not the buyer? The transaction is complete and the product is now owned by the buyer and the buyer should be the one responsible for fixing it just like it is when you buy a used car with no warrantee.

    96. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI Apple was the single brand I bought that actually CHANGED my laptop display due design faults - 2 years after the warranty expired FOR FREE. Try that with ASUS or DELL ...

    97. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gave up when nerds started using middle class =/= instead of the technically correct !=

    98. Re:Intentionally poor headline by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      You are. Maybe I should write potentially liable instead of liable. Literally everything else is correct. You asked why they were suing. I explained it to the troll. Didn't really take though apparently.

    99. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      The whole warranty term thing is a red herring dropped by Apple, and you're on it like a hound!

      The actual class action is that the problem in the iPhone 6 is a defect that results in a premature failure. Specifically, the "touch disease" defect where weak solder and an excessively flexible phone combine to make the touch screen fail early under normal use. The suit essentially alleges that a consumer has a right to expect better than that for that class of product. The term of contracts, loans, elephant babies, etc all notwithstanding.

      There are two kinds of warranties out there. The one you're stuck on is an express warranty. There are also implied warranties. Implied warranties are imposed in law and cannot generally be disclaimed by a manufacturer (though many try). Those cover such things as merchantability, fitness for purpose and often set a minimum for durability.

    100. Re:Intentionally poor headline by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Same here. An iPhone 4S with failed wifi was replaced for free, no questions asked, due to design flaws.

    101. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My acquired-for-free salvaged iPhone 4S also lasted for about 4 years before I replaced it, and still functions decently for the rare occasions that I need a second device.

      And if that anecdote were representative of the majority of cases then Apple would be able to guarantee them lasting beyond a year, but it isnt.

    102. Re:Intentionally poor headline by blindseer · · Score: 1

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim.

      Both Craftsman and Snap-On offer free replacements on broken hand tools but no professional is going to buy Craftsman tools. Craftsman just overcharges so much for their cheap shit that they can afford to hand out free replacements until the owner figures out that a Snap-On tool is a much better replacement. Snap-On isn't cheap because they make stuff that is really hard to break. If for some reason you do break it (such as due to a random manufacturing flaw) then they'll give you a free replacement to keep you as a customer. The feedback in learning how their tools break so they can do better is worth "buying" the broken tool from you for the price of a replacement.

      Lifetime warranties are worth nothing. It's the reputation that matters.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    103. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And actually, there is very little reason for an electronic device to have a warranty period over 90 days. After that, you are past the 92% point of the "infant mortality" period of defects in materials and workmanship, and after that, it's either excessive wear, or more often than not, customer-induced failures, neither of which should be covered under a standard warranty.

      The complaint is that over time many of the devices are suffering touchscreen issues as a result of poor design or component choices. Some might be just fine while others that use a different batch of components suffer the issue. If this is the minority and, as you say they, this would be an outlier case then there's no reason they couldn't offer even a 5 year warranty.

    104. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a reason the people stand in lines to get new iPhones. There is a reason people are loyal to the Apple brand. It's not because Apple makes shit. Pull the Android's dick out of your ass and join reality.

    105. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And how much time do you spend dealing with upgrading your phone, over its lifespan?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    106. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The whole warranty term thing is a red herring dropped by Apple, and you're on it like a hound!

      Um. The whole warranty thing was brought up by the plaintiffs and multiple people here on this forum. Or did you not read the article? "'To hold Apple's Limited Warranty substantively unconscionable simply because Plaintiffs expect their iPhones to last the length of their cellular service contracts 'would place a burden on [Apple] for which it did not contract,' the company continued." The plaintiffs actually argued the warranty should last as long as their contracts. Apple legal counsel has to address all arguments made by the plaintiffs or they wouldn't be doing their jobs. How is that a red herring when the plaintiff brought it up?

      The actual class action is that the problem in the iPhone 6 is a defect that results in a premature failure. Specifically, the "touch disease" defect where weak solder and an excessively flexible phone combine to make the touch screen fail early under normal use.

      Yes and I said the plaintiff has to prove all of that and make a case for it in court.

      The suit essentially alleges that a consumer has a right to expect better than that for that class of product. The term of contracts, loans, elephant babies, etc all notwithstanding.

      Please specify how to do qualify "class of product" Please specify why any of that should nullify a legal contract.

      There are two kinds of warranties out there. The one you're stuck on is an express warranty. There are also implied warranties. Implied warranties are imposed in law and cannot generally be disclaimed by a manufacturer (though many try). Those cover such things as merchantability, fitness for purpose and often set a minimum for durability.

      Er, what? Please describe what part of a 1 year limited express warranty by Apple violates any implied warranties. I would guarantee you that most if not all cell phones in the US have a 1 year limited warranty exactly like Apple. How many of them are voided according to your logic?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    107. Re: Intentionally poor headline by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> All my $100 Android phones lasted several years though.

      > Was that you I saw standing in the rain waiting for the bus? Did you get home ok?

      Sure thing. Flying out of Madrid is easy peasy. It's not like trying to fly out of Rome.

      The busses in Madrid go meow. Or perhaps that's Seville I am thinking of.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    108. Re: Intentionally poor headline by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple consented to this kind of thing the moment they started to claim that they make better quality. They like to make all of the noises of a luxury brand without actually following through.

      Apple likes to pretend it's Craftsman.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    109. Re:Intentionally poor headline by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      So you didn't hear about the Cuisinart blade recall then? I had a food processor that was at least 10 years old covered under this. The replacement blade came on a slow boat from China but it was free and eventually made it.

      I know people with 30 year old stand mixers. I expect to be able to get spare parts for mine when mine is that old.

      That's kind of why I bought it (and the Cuisinart) and stopped buying the cheap crap.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    110. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think everyone needs to define "obsolete".

      Even as a "smart" phone, it's been a long time since a phone I've had stopped being useful for what I bought it for. The screens are pretty good, the CPU is pretty good, the battery life is pretty good.

      My wife and I both use our motox 2013s for around the house stuff like playing music or surfing the web. Sure, with Android m we don't get the shiniest whizbang features, but it's perfectly fine.

      By contrast, a 1995 PC was simply not usable in 2000. The things you'd do with a PC just weren't possible. It wasn't a useful piece of equipment. Now that, that's obsolete.

    111. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      And what does that have to do with requiring Kitchen Aid to fully warranty their mixers for 30 years because some expects it to last that long?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    112. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And did you ever stop to think that that is what people want? I would rather have an increased price to maintain a guarantee of quality than a silent degradation of quality to maintain a price.

      Then you can buy Apple Care when you buy your phone, which will give you 2 years warranty.

      What's your point again?

    113. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      The comments seem to suggest statistics are what expect it to last that long, not "some people". Basically the company might be able to play the odds, sell more products due to a higher warranty, and improve their profits by fixing whichever ones don't last for 30 years for free. Good customer service = good customer satisfaction = more customers.

    114. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      *NO*. *READ TFA AGAIN*.

      Plaintiffs argued reasonable expectations. Apple replied with warranty information. Didn't you RTFA?

      Please specify how to do qualify "class of product" Please specify why any of that should nullify a legal contract.

      Well, let's see. Apple says it's the very best cellphone. They claim it's the best quality. The slickest design, etc, etc. It is certainly priced to match such claims, so I would say it's fair to classify it as high end for the purposes of reasonable expectations.

      Make claims that big, and for a product that offers consumers little way to evaluate it under the hood (it's sealed shut and the design details are far from public) and you can well expect to be held to a high standard by the courts. You have implied strongly that people should expect more than they will get from a dirt cheap no-name burner. Certainly the customer has a right to expect more than a flimsy device that pops it's own solder joints before you're even done paying for it.

      As for the rest, no cellphone ever should be expected to fail in less than 2 years unless abused. 100% should be forced to offer at least 2 years warranty. There are no moving parts, there's no excuse for less than 2 years.

    115. Re:Intentionally poor headline by inflex · · Score: 1

      The touch-disease happens even without a strike / drop.

      The fault manifests as an extremely fine crack in the PCB track leading to the M1 ball on the touch controller IC. The proper way to fix this is the run a small jumper of wire from the touch IC BGA ball to further up the PCB track.

      The phone does not need to be dropped for this to fail, just general thermal cycling and daily use is enough to develop the issues. Apple's little "addition" about requiring a drop is an attempt to try get some distance between the fault and themselves.

    116. Re: Intentionally poor headline by kenh · · Score: 1

      Re: Intentionally poor headline
      Anonymous Coward 5 hours ago
      FYI Apple was the single brand I bought that actually CHANGED my laptop display due design faults - 2 years after the warranty expired FOR FREE. Try that with ASUS or DELL ...

      And:

      Same here. An iPhone 4S with failed wifi was replaced for free, no questions asked, due to design flaws.

      Wouldn't you rather have devices without design faults in the first place?

      --
      Ken
    117. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      No YOU read it again. I've read it. I've also read the dismissal. From the original dismissal back in March:

      "As to substantive unconscionability, Plaintiffs assert that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because Defendant “manufactures a new [iPhone] model every two years,” that cellphone service providers offer phones on two-year contracts,” and Plaintiffs thus “intuit that in the event of a latent problem with their phone during the lifeof that contract, [Defendant] will make them whole, especially if [Defendant] manufactured the flaw into the iPhones in the first place.” Pl. Opp. at 15. However “a time limitation, by itself, is not unconscionable,” and courts have rejected unconscionability arguments in similar cases. Bros., 2006 WL 3093685, at *8 (rejecting unconscionability argument where the plaintiff argued “the class do[es] not have any meaningful choice in the time limitations in the warranty, the express terms favor HP, and HP knew that the [printers] were defective and would fail well before their useful life”)

      As to reasonable expectations of a warranty, the court also ruled that "An express warranty covering ‘materials and workmanship’ does not include design defects.” Clark v. LG Elecs USA, Inc" and "The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’argument that the Limited Warranty’s 1-year duration provision is unconscionable"

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    118. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I would agree that pro-rated warranties give warranties a bad name and should have to be declared prominently (e.g. that sticker on the car battery better say "5 year PRO RATED Warranty").

      A proper warranty though replaces or repairs your product as long as it's covered - you paid for a 5 year tire, and don't abuse it, then you don't pay for tires for 5 years. If they sell you a 4-year tire with a 5-year warranty, then you get an extra 3 years of tire out of the replacement pair on their dime. Keeps them honest.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    119. Re: Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Hey I've personally seen Kitchen-Aid mixers last 30 years. But that doesn't mean Kitchen-Aid warranties their mixers for 30 years or should be forced to do so.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    120. Re: Intentionally poor headline by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Adding to that, 2 years is the minimum period that they will begrudgingly voluntarily repair or replace phones (and other Apple products). Lawfully speaking they can be held to a much longer period than that (which they acknowledge).

      https://www.apple.com/au/legal...

    121. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of planned obsolescence ?

    122. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying someone's logic is faulty then giving a fallacious argument.
      Oh the irony.

    123. Re: Intentionally poor headline by KGIII · · Score: 1

      She has anger issues.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    124. Re:Intentionally poor headline by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      I personally use Apple products more or less exclusively. I've used PCs, and Android devices, and Build-your-own PCs, for decades.

      The fact is that Apple hardware beats the crap out of everything else on the market, every time. You pay a little bit more, and you get fantastic hardware, and the best desktop OS experience that exists, plus excellent and simple cloud offerings too. iCloud keychain, and photo library, are fantastic. For both security, and versatility, neither of them are matched by any other product. Prove me wrong.

      All that said, I wouldn't touch a 'beats by dre' headphone if you paid me.

    125. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the amended complaint will clarify. Notably, there seem to be 3 suits over this issue. That may be contributing confusion as well.

      Personally, I would argue that the whole debacle is a design defect, much like the old XBox red ring of death debacle (caused by excessive heating and mechanical strain on a solder pad).

    126. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "More expensive" =/= "better".
      "More popular" =/= "better".

    127. Re:Intentionally poor headline by tepples · · Score: 1

      People have the choice to buy the handset up front and use it with prepaid service.

    128. Re:Intentionally poor headline by SciCom+Luke · · Score: 1

      Well, warranties on electronics have a legal minimum of two years in most of Europe. I wonder how Apple will solve this.

    129. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Your own amended complaint is dated October 2016 which is before the dismissal I presented of March 2017. Even in the amended complaint, the plaintiff makes the same argument about the warranty period being "unconscionable" for lasting one year and should last two years because the cellular contract is two years.

      72. Consumers also reasonably expect that smartphones will remain operable for at least two years when not subject to abuse or neglect because the overwhelming majority of smartphone users are required to sign service contracts with cellular carriers for two-year periods. This means that consumers must select and use one smartphone for the duration of the two-year contract. 73. As such, Apple’s one-year express warranty is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    130. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It took a couple of hours to migrate from the stock Android to LineageOS (doing the same thing for my partner's phone was much faster once I'd done it once). Beyond that, the updates are pretty much automatic - I get a notification that one is available, I tap to install it, I do something else for a few minutes for it to finish.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    131. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to be really accurate, it's an ADHESION contract, not an actual contract which is negotiated by both parties. Adhesion contracts have never been given the force of actual contracts. Companies which allow you to click through 27 pages of text in 3 seconds known you didn't read it, and so does the court. They know that you can't read it. They know that if everyone were to read every page of every adhesion contract placed in front of them, the national economy would grind to a halt. Since Apple's business model depends on you not reading the adhesion contract, the courts (sometimes) make sure that they're reasonable.

    132. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      The amount of time it takes to pay something off is a decent measure of people's minimum reasonable expectations, yes?

    133. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Ebsolas · · Score: 1

      And I've been using the same iPhone for 6. Your point?

    134. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard of Snap-On, although I'm not really their target market.

      Looks like they have minimal UK presence, but their website also suggests they have QA issues. Their tools may be great but I'm not going to buy one through that flakey piece of shit.

    135. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The reason it is longer in Europe is due to them wanting a "high level of consumer protection." There are certainly times when US law could take a lesson from others. This would likely be one of them.,

      Yes but since this happened in the US, what do you expect Apple to do? Their warranty is covered under US laws.

      No, their warranty is excused under US laws. Other countries validate this.

      Every auto manufacturer could limit the factory warranty on every car sold in the US to one year regardless of consumer expectation or loan lengths, if they wanted to be a greedy dick about it.

      And what you are advocating is that regardless of what the auto warranty says, my bank loan overrides the warranty even though the manufacturer never agreed to the terms. My 7 year car loan automatically forces my auto manufacturer to warranty my car for 7 years.

      You are failing to understand my statement. What if your favorite auto maker suddenly changed their warranty to 1 year, and forced you to pay for anything more than that? Would you still feel confident in the product and buy a new car from them, or would you re-consider, based on their calculations and reasoning for limiting their product to one year? I have a feeling you would think about it, for there is always a validated reason to limit warranties on hardware, and it usually has to do with reliability.

      ?Third party terms or product demand have far less to do with my argument than the bullshit claim that Apple makes a durable product. If they do, then prove it with a decent warranty that conforms to consumer expectations.

      By your argument, any company that has made a "durable" product must offer unlimited lifetime warranties. A decent warranty for most electronics is 1 year and limited.

      That "decent" warranty would be mocked in other countries who believe in protecting the consumer. And ironically enough, when sales start to drop for any product, one of the first things a manufacturer does to boost sales is to extend the factory warranty, proving just how minimal the financial impact really is.

      A product is "durable" or it isn't. Stop with the bullshit marketing if all you're going to offer is the same shit warranty that every other vendor offers.

    136. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim.

      Both Craftsman and Snap-On offer free replacements on broken hand tools but no professional is going to buy Craftsman tools. Craftsman just overcharges so much for their cheap shit that they can afford to hand out free replacements until the owner figures out that a Snap-On tool is a much better replacement. Snap-On isn't cheap because they make stuff that is really hard to break. If for some reason you do break it (such as due to a random manufacturing flaw) then they'll give you a free replacement to keep you as a customer. The feedback in learning how their tools break so they can do better is worth "buying" the broken tool from you for the price of a replacement.

      Lifetime warranties are worth nothing. It's the reputation that matters.

      To be clear, I respect both Craftsman and Snap-On, but your argument (and Snap-Ons pricing) hardly holds water when both companies are willing to replace hardware for free for life. I used a Craftsman screwdriver as a crowbar and bent the shit out of it, no questions with replacement. Yes, perhaps 5% of consumers will break Craftsman tools more often than Snap-On tools, but the initial investment is considerably more with Snap-On. For that reason, I would choose Craftsman. If I'm worried about a tool breaking at the wrong time and not getting a replacement in time, then I'll buy two of them. That is when two is one, one is none rules apply.

      And most companies do analysis on failed hardware, especially if it becomes repetitive. It's the only way to make a better product.

    137. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1

      So you didn't hear about the Cuisinart blade recall then? I had a food processor that was at least 10 years old covered under this. The replacement blade came on a slow boat from China but it was free and eventually made it.

      I know people with 30 year old stand mixers. I expect to be able to get spare parts for mine when mine is that old.

      That's kind of why I bought it (and the Cuisinart) and stopped buying the cheap crap.

      This is also why I own a Cuisinart mixer, and a Vitamix blender. Good warranties and vendor support, are worth it.

    138. Re:Intentionally poor headline by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Guess I don't follow your logic with that theory, since I believe a warranty is used to demonstrate the actual durability of a product.

      If we follow your idea, then the courts would be clogged with cases of impossible to meet guidelines. A Kitchen-Aid stand mixer might last 30 years but that would require Kitchen-Aid to fully guarantee all their mixers for 30 years. My computer lasted 5 years before the power supply blew; my buddy's same model is still going after 10 years, I should sue.

      Please don't be ignorant about this and assume the extreme. Yes, an iPhone could last 3-5 years for a lot of people. All I'm asking is for a vendor to match consumer expectations and offer a factory warranty that mirrors what carriers are pushing, which is two years. That should not be asking for a lot from a company that is marketing (and defending in court) a "durable" product. If it's durable, then back up your damn marketing and legal defense with a reasonable warranty.

    139. Re:Intentionally poor headline by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's what got me: How can you claim your phones are the highest-quality, most-durable devices and also claim that offering a warranty longer than the warranty period of lower-quality devices would be burdensome? Not lifetime, of course--although phones tend to last forever, and just end up slow because the new phone is faster.

    140. Re:Intentionally poor headline by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The right headline would be "Warranted to last only ...."

      They're not guaranteeing it will last 1 year; they're not promising you it will break after 1 year exactly; they're assuring you some services or replacement at their cost if it should become completely non-functional before the end of 1 year, but if it should simply malfunction (such as some dead pixels), that might or might not be covered.

    141. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hadn't heard of Snap-On, although I'm not really their target market.

      Looks like they have minimal UK presence, but their website also suggests they have QA issues. Their tools may be great but I'm not going to buy one through that flakey piece of shit.

      You likely couldn't buy one anyway, unless you're a professional working in a brick-and-mortar establishment.

      I'm a hobbyist, and wanted to buy SnapOn, but they are sold by independent contractors out of their trucks, and the local rep would not come to my house, OR let me meet him somewhere.

      So - FUCK SnapOn.

    142. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of planned obsolescence ?

      By definition, "planned" means they intentionally did it and then yes, they should be liable. Apple didn't knowingly design phones that would bend so you had to replace them. To use another example, several years ago Ford sold a bunch of trucks where the blue paint started to flake after a couple years. My brother bought one of these trucks used at a discount because of the flaking paint and then got a free paint job from Ford making it like new again. Ford didn't intentionally go and try to create paint that failed after a couple of years. I don't see why they are under any obligation at all to fix an honest mistake that noone planned for and noone knew about at the time of sell. Same with a lot of these ambulance chasers on TV. If you knew a medical device was harmful and sold it anyways and/or it can be shown that you didn't do the proper premarket testing then they should be able to bankrupt you but if you sold a device to make someone's life better and 10 years down the road it is discovered that it has a fatal defect that noone could have predicted, I don't think the device manufacturer should be liable.

    143. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what I'm asking for is a company that claims to make a "durable" product back up that claim.

      Both Craftsman and Snap-On offer free replacements on broken hand tools but no professional is going to buy Craftsman tools. Craftsman just overcharges so much for their cheap shit that they can afford to hand out free replacements until the owner figures out that a Snap-On tool is a much better replacement. Snap-On isn't cheap because they make stuff that is really hard to break. If for some reason you do break it (such as due to a random manufacturing flaw) then they'll give you a free replacement to keep you as a customer. The feedback in learning how their tools break so they can do better is worth "buying" the broken tool from you for the price of a replacement.

      Lifetime warranties are worth nothing. It's the reputation that matters.

      To be clear, I respect both Craftsman and Snap-On, but your argument (and Snap-Ons pricing) hardly holds water when both companies are willing to replace hardware for free for life. I used a Craftsman screwdriver as a crowbar and bent the shit out of it, no questions with replacement. Yes, perhaps 5% of consumers will break Craftsman tools more often than Snap-On tools, but the initial investment is considerably more with Snap-On. For that reason, I would choose Craftsman. If I'm worried about a tool breaking at the wrong time and not getting a replacement in time, then I'll buy two of them. That is when two is one, one is none rules apply.

      And most companies do analysis on failed hardware, especially if it becomes repetitive. It's the only way to make a better product.

      Many years ago, Sears tried "altering" their warranty on Craftsman tools, and started requiring a receipt. I said "But the sign over the tools says UNCONDITIONAL lifetime warranty - that means no receipt". No dice.

      Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat. My return also was a screwdriver with a notch missing out of the blade. So I asked where the identical screwdrivers were, so I could buy one. I bought one. Receipt now in hand, I said "I have this damaged screwdriver I need replaced, and here is my receipt".
      He glared at me, but gave me a replacement screwdriver.

      Now comes the fun part - "I bought this screwdriver, but don't want it. I want my money back. Here's my receipt".

      I must not have been the only one to do that, as they dropped that stupid receipt policy shortly after.

    144. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      All I'm asking is for a vendor to match consumer expectations and offer a factory warranty that mirrors what carriers are pushing, which is two years. That should not be asking for a lot from a company that is marketing (and defending in court) a "durable" product. If it's durable, then back up your damn marketing and legal defense with a reasonable warranty.

      Why would you want to be forced into a two year warranty? You can buy one today, so the only difference between the world you are proposing and the world we live in is that you want to have no choice but to have a two year warranty. Even if the warranty is mandatory, it isn't free - it will be reflected in the cost of the product. There is also no guarantee that the company will react to the obligation to have a two year warranty by improving product quality. If it's cheaper to simply raise the price and pay the extra claims than it is to raise the price and re-engineer the product, then that's what they'll do.

      I don't want to live in your world, because I only want a short warranty that protects me from a DOA or defective product - and most defects show up soon after purchase. Any longer than a few months is a waste of money.

    145. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you claim your phones are the highest-quality, most-durable devices and also claim that offering a warranty longer than the warranty period of lower-quality devices would be burdensome?

      By talking to stupid people.

      Seriously, try it! It works. You can say contradictory things and not get called on it. Lying is fucking awesome! If you're not lying, you're not living.

    146. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      First, the court addressed your reasonable expectations if you bothered to read the dismissal. I've addressed it. Here's why it's not reasonable in a legal sense: In principle you cannot make someone agree to contract terms of which they were not a part of the contract. I could write a contract that you owe me money that I wrote with any John Smith because I reasonably expect to be paid for work I did for John Smith. Second, are you willing to admit that the plaintiff brought up the issue? Therefore it's not a "red herring" that you claim it was.

      As a matter of common sense here's why you are advocating for the unreasonable. By analogy, you can get car loans with terms up to 84 months. Some car manufacturers do not offer warranties that long with 36 months limited and 60 months powertrain typically the minimum. If we go with your skewered interpretations of reasonable expectations, all car manufacturers must warranty their cars based on whatever loan with a bank you decided to sign. If the bank creates a 20 year auto loan, the car manufacturer must honor the warranty that even though that car may not last that long. As another example, home mortgages are typically 15 and 30 years. A home builder typically insures a new home for 1 year in which they will repair any defects. According to you a home builder has to insure a house for 30 years even though the home builder may not exist by the time the home is paid off. And if the home owner decides to refinance, the home builder is on the hook for additional years.

      And we are only discussing new items. We haven't got to the used market where most used or 2nd hand items sales are implied as as-is sales. Your proposal would have the manufacturer warranty for an indefinite amount of time if something gets resold and new loans are applied. Who is being reasonable here?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    147. Re: Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The court addressed adhesion contract in the original dismissal. As the court points out, the plaintiffs had the opportunity to read the contract before purchase and object either by not purchasing (or purchasing a competitor's phone) or attempting to negotiate. They chose to do none of those things.

      With regards to procedural unconscionability, Plaintiffs contend that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because it is a contract of adhesion, and because Plaintiffs were provided with the Limited Warranty only after purchase. Pl. Opp. at 14. However, “while the terms of the [Limited Warranty] are non-negotiable, Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked other options for purchasing [smartphones] or for obtaining additional warranty protections from Apple itself.” Berenblatt v. Apple, 2010 WL 1460297, at *5. Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs “were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.

      Adhesion contracts are problematic if you cannot access them before sale. For example, the Microsoft Windows EULA was only accessible after you installed Windows (before XP if I remember). But by installing it you agreed to the EULA including the provision that you were not entitled to a refund after installation. A court ruled that was unenforceable. Microsoft has to make the EULA available on their website these days and I think they they changed the installation to show the EULA before you agree to do it.

      In some ways, the Windows 10 forced upgrade issue presents another legal problem for MS in that if consumers had their machines upgraded to 10 without permission, they didn't have a chance to object and not upgrade. Thus they could not give implied consent.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    148. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Please don't be ignorant about this and assume the extreme.

      A Kitchen-Aid mixer lasting 30 years isn't the extreme. It's quite normal as those things last forever. A car could last 20+ years. These are normal in the real world, not extreme. Neither of those products have lifetime warranties. Who is the ignorant about the real world?

      I'm asking is for a vendor to match consumer expectations and offer a factory warranty that mirrors what carriers are pushing, which is two years.

      They DO offer one if you pay for it. However in the US, the minimum and standard manufacturer warranty is typically 1 year. The problem with what you propose is that a cell carrier could make a 3, 4, or 5 year contracts. The manufacturer has no legal standing into anything you agree to with the cell company. By the way, the "vendor" in your scenario as you describe may not be the manufacturer. The vendor could be the cell company. In some cases to get sales, a vendor may grant or offer a warranty on top of a manufacturer's warranty. But again, that is on the vendor, not the manufacturer.

      That should not be asking for a lot from a company that is marketing (and defending in court) a "durable" product. If it's durable, then back up your damn marketing and legal defense with a reasonable warranty.

      The court ruled in the original dismissal on your "reasonable warranty" arguments and shot them all down.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    149. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No, their warranty is excused under US laws. Other countries validate this.

      And you're arguing it shouldn't be allowed under US law. Did you contract did yourself?

      You are failing to understand my statement. What if your favorite auto maker suddenly changed their warranty to 1 year, and forced you to pay for anything more than that?

      By what do you mean "suddenly changed their warranty". The Apple warranty was always 1 year in the US. It's always been 1 year. Apple did not "suddenly change" their warranty as you imply. Please describe how Apple "suddenly changed" their warranty. Therefore your assertion is false.

      Would you still feel confident in the product and buy a new car from them, or would you re-consider, based on their calculations and reasoning for limiting their product to one year? I have a feeling you would think about it, for there is always a validated reason to limit warranties on hardware, and it usually has to do with reliability.

      Your hypothetical is based on a scenario that didn't happen in this case. However in a hypothetical scenario if a manufacturer changes their warranty coverage on new products, you are free not to buy their products (as we all are). As were the plaintiffs. If Honda reduced their warranties to 1 year on their cars, you are free not to buy their cars. You can't buy a Honda then complain after the fact that the warranty was 1 year. That isn't the scenario here as the warranty has always been 1 year. The court ruled as much in the original dismissal.

      Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.

      That "decent" warranty would be mocked in other countries who believe in protecting the consumer. And ironically enough, when sales start to drop for any product, one of the first things a manufacturer does to boost sales is to extend the factory warranty, proving just how minimal the financial impact really is.

      Your idea of decent warranty goes against common sense. How long is your home warrantied by your home builder? I bet you it's not 30 years or 15 years which is a typical mortgage. How long is your car warrantied? It may not be the length of your car loan.

      A product is "durable" or it isn't. Stop with the bullshit marketing if all you're going to offer is the same shit warranty that every other vendor offers.

      Again your ideas about durable are unenforceable as a matter of practicality. My computer didn't last 10 years, I should sue. My lawn mower didn't last 40 years, I should sue. I should sue because nothing lasted as long as I expected them to last.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    150. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      By the way, it's not 3 lawsuits as far as I can tell. It's one lawsuit. The court dismissed the original complaint in March but allowed the plaintiffs to refile. The dismissal noted that some of plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and some of the arguments would have been dismissed anyways. Since the case is not at trial stage yet, it's typical to dismiss the case and have them re-file removing some plaintiffs and changing their arguments. Had the case been at or near trial, the court probably would have merely dismissed the case with no chance to re-file.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    151. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet your still here, commenting.

      I apologize to to everyone here, i know I just left some super sweet treats for the troll....

    152. Re:Intentionally poor headline by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have a Motorola from 2013 and it still runs great, but I can't get updates. I'll have to flash it eventually. I can't imagine the number of bugs I'm probably vulnerable to by now. If Congress wasn't so woefully ignorant about everything, I'd expect them to take some action to make our computing lives more secure and protect the consumer. All the tech biggies have lobbyists working against us...

    153. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is an entirely different class action covering the same issue in the U.S. and another in Canada. That is likely why we seem to have conflicting information.

    154. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple isn't Craftsman, it's Crap, Man"

      I like the look, feel and interface of the iPhone, but never for one minute think that it's a necessarily better or "luxury" product...simply WAY overpriced. I tried an Android, but between kludgy interface and far to much crapware pre-loaded, it just wasn't my cup of tea.

      But Apple has no excuse for not guaranteeing their product for at least 2 years...for the money we spend on it, hell, it should be a good 5 years.

    155. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen his full presentation but I have seen yours. Your assertion that the highest quality and most durable is not reality is not supported in your comment. It is just marketing banter that no one takes seriously anyway.

      I have no contract at all. No one has shown up to my door and threatened violence should I not enter into a two year cellphone contract. I bought the SE when it was released and it looks like new. It's in my pocket every day.

      I suspect dropping or other mishandling of phones is the cause of most premature phone failures.

      The answer is don't drop your phone. It's the same answer for any phone.

    156. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      So, if a significant number of a particular make of car died after just 7 years (total loss, trip to scrap yard), you would suggest that's just fine?

      Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality. If one or 2 units fail outside of warranty, it's likely just bad luck, but if a significant number do so, well before the failures would be expected, it's reasonable to suspect the defect existed from day 1.

    157. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bold and italics work fine. Use HTML.

    158. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stores and distributors that even unintentionally sell bad food, must promptly recall that food. Customers are encouraged to turn in existing batches of said bad food. And customers who turn in food that went bad before the due date, can get a refund, if they have the purchase slip.

    159. Re: Intentionally poor headline by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I don't have to fight it out in court because my phone is busted and it worked for me at a much lower price point.

    160. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Personally seen is not statistically significant. Again, the discussion is about statistically significant numbers of the product surviving to 30 years. Such as more than 75%-85%, and definitely at 95% of the product making it to a certain life span, such as two years for iPhone, or 30 for the mixer.

    161. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It's not 3 suits. Your amended complaint is for case 16-CV-04942-LHK. That is the same case as the dismissal. The judge dismissed 10 counts of the suit back in March but allowed them to re-file; however, it appears the plaintiffs did not change their arguments regarding the cellular contracts which she dismissed the first time around.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    162. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So, if a significant number of a particular make of car died after just 7 years (total loss, trip to scrap yard), you would suggest that's just fine?

      The plaintiffs must prove that in court. They cannot merely assert something and claim it to be true. I already said this. And the case has not gone to trial yet.

      However, the plaintiffs also claimed that a 1 year warranty was unconscionable on principle because they entered into 2 year contracts with a company not named Apple. Also among other claims by the plaintiff: Apple's warranty disclaimers do not count because they were not "conspicuous" because Apple didn't bold them all in their warranty. That the warranty provisions do not count because the plaintiffs did not read them until after purchasing the product (while filing a lawsuit). So how do you feel about those claims?

      Also are you willing to admit that this wasn't a red herring brought by Apple seeing how the plaintiffs made the argument multiple times and had it dismissed multiple times?

      Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality. If one or 2 units fail outside of warranty, it's likely just bad luck, but if a significant number do so, well before the failures would be expected, it's reasonable to suspect the defect existed from day 1.

      Please cite me the case law that says that. This is your assertion. It's not based on any actual case law, is it?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    163. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      Please cite me the case law that says that. This is your assertion. It's not based on any actual case law, is it?

      It's based on engineering. I can't say if Apple will successfully snow job the court or not, but there exists plenty of evidence that a combination of inadequate stiffness and/or inadequate soldering tends to cause connections to the chip that drives the touchscreen to break.

    164. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      Google it. There are 3 suits.

    165. Re:Intentionally poor headline by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Hm, well it's not wide-ranging, but I bought an Axon 7 (ZTE) and it comes with a 2 year warranty just for buying it.
      https://www.zteusa.com/passpor...

      It also came with a beefy fast charger that will charge it to 80% in 30 minutes right in the retail box, which the iPhone 8/X do not. Oh, and it also came with a clear case, and screen protector right in the box too. It was probably the nicest, least nickel-and-dime purchase experience I've ever had with a phone.

      A pleased customer,
      Sam

    166. Re: Intentionally poor headline by driblio · · Score: 1

      The EU guarantees 2 year warranties on everything.

      What a socialist hell-hole this place is.

    167. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Apple could market an iRock, and the lemmings would stand in line for it.

      That argument worked back in the day, when Apple's marketshare was around 2%, and there was no iPhone.

      Now? Not so much.

      ronically enough, when sales start to drop, often one of the first things a manufacturer does is extend the standard warranty as a sales tactic. This tends to define exactly how minimal a financial impact that action is, and how easily Apple could afford to offer it.

      And how does that apply to Apple? Their standard warranty has been 1 year in the US, different terms in different Nation/States, such as the EU, as dictated by local law, for DECADES. They have also offered an Extended Warranty for DECADES. So, did you have a point?

      As far as everyone else out there, a lot of the market follows Apple's arrogance; if Apple charges the customer for durability and gets away with it due to little impact on demand, then others follow suit. We've seen it time and time again. Doesn't make it right by any means.

      Hello, Mr. Strawman. So nice to see you... AGAIN!

      You really need to brush-up on your debate-skills. Your "thesis" sucks balls.

    168. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      THE reason they're more expensive is EU VAT which applies to all goods manufactured outside of the EU and which don't fall under any of the free trade agreements.

      I will agree that is definitely another factor; but don't for one minute think that Apple is just absorbing that extra year of Warranty Burden for zero price difference to the consumer.

    169. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And my mother used her original iPhone until her carrier essentially forced her to upgrade to stay compatible with their services. Does that mean iPhones all last almost a decade, or does that mean anecdotal evidence is absolutely meaningless? You decide.

    170. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      So DOUBLING the warranty is a huge burden, but AppleCare+ is low cost and an incredible value? Which of those is true?

      You added the adjective "Huge", Mr. Trump.

      But it IS an ADDITIONAL Burden.

      And considering that you could be "out" several hundred dollars if your $1k iPhone X gets run over by a car, limiting that potential "out-of-pocket" to $129 (for the warranty itself) + $99 (customer-damage flat-fee repair), seems like a decent tradeoff to me. And of course, that same $129 also gets you broken glass replacement for $29, and any "defects in materials and workmanship" for free.

      BTW, If you DON'T have AppleCare+, I don't think the "flat fee" repairs for customer-damage/glass-replacement apply, even in the initial warranty period of 1 year. So AppleCare+ really is only $60-ish "per year" to protect a $1k mobile device that generally lives a somewhat "dangerous" life.

    171. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It's based on engineering.

      So it's not based on the law which this entire article was about. But let's talk about your claims in an engineering sense:

      Essentially, a manufacturer can be held to reasonably expected standards for quality and durability, particularly when they boast of their quality.

      Please cite any engineering textbooks that actually say that. Quality and durability are not normal terms normally used in process improvement nor manufacturing engineering. Terms like defects and variability. While Six Sigma has become more of a brand, the roots are in process improvement to ensure that manufacturing processes reduce variability and defects. Those are terms that would come from engineering.

      I can't say if Apple will successfully snow job the court or not, but there exists plenty of evidence that a combination of inadequate stiffness and/or inadequate soldering tends to cause connections to the chip that drives the touchscreen to break.

      Again, you are putting the cart before the horse. The plaintiff must prove what they have claimed. Considering that some of their claims are very weak (A warranty's provisions should not be considered because the plaintiffs didn't read it until afterwards.), I doubt that they have adequate evidence. Also considering that it seems the court is striking plaintiffs due to lack of standing as the case goes on, I would say the plaintiffs' lawyers didn't due enough diligence before filing.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    172. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No, the standard is that you back up your claims with evidence. The standard is not that I back up your claims with evidence. And why would you bring up a Canadian lawsuit when talking about a US lawsuit?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    173. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Claim it is the users fault and charge $149 to fix a problem that was a manufactures defect. Maybe that was the point but with your head so far up apples ass you could not get it.

      $149 was a reasonable compromise, considering that the frequency of the problem did not strongly suggest an issue with Apple's CM's manufacturing process (except that it had to be RoHS, and thus REAL solder could not be used!), and it SURE wasn't a "Design Defect".

      And other OEMs have had similar issues; but they don't generally make the news unless fires and explosions are involved, and because they aren't given a catchy, easily-searchable name like "Touch Disease", and so are almost impossible to search-for...

      But here's one:

      https://www.ifixit.com/Answers... ...and another...

      https://www.ifixit.com/Answers... ...and another...

      https://www.ifixit.com/Answers... ...and still more...

      https://thedroidguy.com/2015/0... ...and even more...

      https://us.community.samsung.c...

      And now, on to the Digitizer:

      https://www.fonepaw.com/androi...

      http://www.droidforums.net/thr...

      https://www.ifixit.com/Answers...

      https://forum.fairphone.com/t/...

      et cetera.

      But as I said, without a catchy name and lots of press-coverage to draw attention of the masses, no one gives a shit.

    174. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      bold and italics work fine. Use HTML.

      I do.
      But life's too short to be assed with typing in HTML markup incantations, when it should be just a simple click to change "styles".

    175. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      In formal debate, yes, informal web discussion, not really. Nevertheless, Open up the hanger, HERE COMES THE PLANE!! VRRRRRRRRRoooooommmm......Omm nonn nomm.

    176. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your choice of the word "withstand" suggests a substantial burden to be certain. For example, if I described "withstanding" the impact of a stream of water, you would be picturing a firehose rather than a squirt gun. Then you go on to explain how inexpensive AppleCare is and talk about it covering customer damage as well. The latter, unlike design and manufacturing defects is out of Apple's control, so surely accounts for most of the cost of AppleCare so long as the devices aren't total junk. More squirt gun than fire hose.

    177. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Um. That mentions 1 US lawsuit and 1 Canadian lawsuit. This article is all about the US lawsuit. You've linked motions about the US lawsuit. . So in essence you have yet to prove there are 3 US lawsuits which you claim. BTW are you willing to admit that you were completely wrong about the "red herring" claim?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    178. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      Engineering tells us there exists a design or manufacturing defect that exists from day one of the product's existence. The law tells us that manufacturers can be held responsible for those. The rest is just so much bloviation.

      So again, it comes down to the ability of Apple's lawyers to snow job the courts.

    179. Re:Intentionally poor headline by sjames · · Score: 1

      Read again. I said one of those lawsuits was canadian from the beginning (that's kinda what "in Canada" means).

      Go away, you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

    180. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      This ENTIRE article and discussion has been about the US lawsuit with comments about what the Apple lawyer from the US has said. Bringing in the Canadian lawsuit for which there are different laws, rules, cases, lawyers, and judges is you simply refusing to admit you're wrong about basic facts. First of all you were dead wrong about your "red herring" claim which was made about the US lawsuit. Second you can't mix cases into two different countries as one. If this lawsuit was in Europe, almost everything from the case may not apply.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    181. Re:Intentionally poor headline by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Again. Please cite your source. You make a lot of assertions but with little evidence. I can say you murdered JFK on the Grass Knoll but that's a claim not fact. Not evidence.

      So again, it comes down to the ability of Apple's lawyers to snow job the courts.

      No in court you must prove what you claim. It seems you don't understand this concept.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    182. Re:Intentionally poor headline by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure they don't :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    183. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The touch-disease happens even without a strike / drop.

      The fault manifests as an extremely fine crack in the PCB track leading to the M1 ball on the touch controller IC. The proper way to fix this is the run a small jumper of wire from the touch IC BGA ball to further up the PCB track.

      The phone does not need to be dropped for this to fail, just general thermal cycling and daily use is enough to develop the issues. Apple's little "addition" about requiring a drop is an attempt to try get some distance between the fault and themselves.

      Sounds fishy to me.

      PCB trace-cracks are almost always more random than what you describe. I don't buy that its ALWAYS a crack in the trace to the M1 Ball, as you allege. I don't doubt that this failure has happened on SOME units; but not ALL, that have exhibited the "Touch Disease" syndrome. For one thing, the symptoms are too varied to be traced (haha) to ONE ball/trace.

      BTW, my iPhone 6 Plus has been dropped repeatedly, once from about 5 ft. onto a hardwood floor onto its back. Hard enough that it actually dislodged the display/digitizer assembly from the case and shattered the glass. Never fixed it. Still that way after 2 years. Works perfectly. If anything was going to crack a PCB trace, that should have done it!

      IMHO, It's a reflow soldering issue, and/or PCB/BGA-component coplanarity issue. Some PCBs are naturally more warped than others, and that damned RoHS solder doesn't help.

      But one thing it is NOT, is a "Design Issue".

      Nice try, though.

    184. Re: Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      And actually, there is very little reason for an electronic device to have a warranty period over 90 days. After that, you are past the 92% point of the "infant mortality" period of defects in materials and workmanship, and after that, it's either excessive wear, or more often than not, customer-induced failures, neither of which should be covered under a standard warranty.

      The complaint is that over time many of the devices are suffering touchscreen issues as a result of poor design or component choices. Some might be just fine while others that use a different batch of components suffer the issue. If this is the minority and, as you say they, this would be an outlier case then there's no reason they couldn't offer even a 5 year warranty.

      If you are referring to the "Touch Disease" issue, that was not a Design problem, nor a Component-Choice problem; but rather a Contract Manufacturing issue, and/or a PCB/Touch-Controller "Coplanarity" issue (i.e. Warped PCBs), exacerbated by RoHS soldering.

      Other phones/tablets have suffered the same issues; but they don't get catchy names attached to their problems; just random internet-forum posts, so they don't come to enough people's attention.

      BTW, I have an iPhone 6 Plus that suffered a drop onto its back from about 5 ft onto a hardwood floor about 2 years ago. The impact was so severe that it actually knocked the entire display/digitizer loose from the aluminum "tub" that forms the back and sides of that iPhone. Digitizer works, Display works. lNever fixed it. Use it to this day.

    185. Re:Intentionally poor headline by inflex · · Score: 1

      There's a crack on the short trace from the M1 ball, and the pad will frequently lift away when you remove the Meson chip to perform the task. Sure, there's a lot of 6+ units out there which aren't suffering it but for each that is suffering the classic touch disease the M1 trace is at fault. Classic M1 touch-disease failure will have the flickering grey bars at the top associated with it.

      I don't care if people call it a design fault or what ever, it doesn't change the actuality that that particular trace fails. As mentioned, it does *not* require the phone to be dropped, normal thermal cycling and daily use alone can cause the failure. It's also not a highly visible break in the track, even at 30~40X magnification you really cannot notably see it. To me it would appear that the combination of parts in the location along with the layout of the trace for what ever reason causes the trace to eventually suffer the micro-tear.

      For quite some time we were trying to just replace the meson chip and there'd be some levels of success, but almost always the phone would end up back in the shop within a month or two with the same classic touch disease issue. Where the "penny dropped" was that we started to notice that for every phone we did the meson replacement attempt that lost the M1 pad during the rework forcing us to put in a replacement trace in, we weren't seeing those ones come back later, and thus the classic touch-disease cause and repair was finally found.

      You're welcome to visit and I'll gladly show you.

    186. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Immerman · · Score: 1

      1 year is a pretty short warranty for a $50 handsaw, much less a $500+ phone with only a handful of mechanical components that could easily be made extremely durable.

      And if the electronics are made well, they'll still be going strong a decade from now.

      The battery is pretty much the only thing that has an unavoidably short lifespan, and it would be easy to exclude from a more respectable warranty.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    187. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And my mother used her original iPhone until her carrier essentially forced her to upgrade to stay compatible with their services. Does that mean iPhones all last almost a decade

      Was the iPhone getting security updates for that time? The last release of iOS to work on the original iPhone was iPhone OS 3.1.3. It stopped getting security updates in 2012. The original iPhone was released in 2007, so that's a maximum of five years. If she was using it for a decade then she was using it with known, remotely exploitable, security vulnerabilities for almost half of that time. That's a very odd definition of 'last'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    188. Re: Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      1 year is a pretty short warranty for a $50 handsaw, much less a $500+ phone with only a handful of mechanical components that could easily be made extremely durable.

      And if the electronics are made well, they'll still be going strong a decade from now.

      The battery is pretty much the only thing that has an unavoidably short lifespan, and it would be easy to exclude from a more respectable warranty.

      Well, I can only speak from experience; but none of my iOS devices have had any failures whatsoever. That includes my iPad 2 that I am typing this on, my iPhone 4s that served me flawlessly until being replaced by my current iPhone 6 Plus, which has also served me flawlessly. By the way, my iPhone 4s still sits in quiet repose on my workbench at home. I charge it once in awhile, just to keep the battery from dying; but it seems to be still working just fine.

      So, IMHO, I think Apple does a bangup job with both their electrical and mechanical component design/selection; so I don't think in their case, there is a correlation between warranty period and component quality; but I think that, for nearly 50 years, ever since the Apple 1, Apple has just always offered a 1 year warranty period for every single one of their products, and so, that is exactly how much thought they put into he warranty period for their mobile products, too.

      By the way, it is important to note that Apple offers that exact same 1 year warranty, including the ability to purchase AppleCare, on their REFURBISHED Products. That's important; because in most cases, most, if not all, of the mechanical portions of those refurb-units are probably NOT replaced. Almost every other company that offers refurbs, whether it be for computers, hard drives, smartphones, or chainsaws, offers a 90 day, or sometimes even less, warranty.

      That suggests to me that Apple really does have "faith" in their product-longevity.

      And Apple has already addressed the issue of the battery, by offering a reasonably-priced (around $100 incl. parts and labor) battery replacement service. Not free; but, as you said, that is a "wear out" component, which should be reasonably excluded from a long warranty.

      BTW, I am not sure, but I would imagine that battery replacements are covered in the AppleCare+ extended warranty; because I can't imagine an iPhone/iPad/Mac battery "wearing out" in 2 years without being defective.

    189. Re:Intentionally poor headline by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      There's a crack on the short trace from the M1 ball, and the pad will frequently lift away when you remove the Meson chip to perform the task. Sure, there's a lot of 6+ units out there which aren't suffering it but for each that is suffering the classic touch disease the M1 trace is at fault. Classic M1 touch-disease failure will have the flickering grey bars at the top associated with it.

      I don't care if people call it a design fault or what ever, it doesn't change the actuality that that particular trace fails. As mentioned, it does *not* require the phone to be dropped, normal thermal cycling and daily use alone can cause the failure. It's also not a highly visible break in the track, even at 30~40X magnification you really cannot notably see it. To me it would appear that the combination of parts in the location along with the layout of the trace for what ever reason causes the trace to eventually suffer the micro-tear.

      For quite some time we were trying to just replace the meson chip and there'd be some levels of success, but almost always the phone would end up back in the shop within a month or two with the same classic touch disease issue. Where the "penny dropped" was that we started to notice that for every phone we did the meson replacement attempt that lost the M1 pad during the rework forcing us to put in a replacement trace in, we weren't seeing those ones come back later, and thus the classic touch-disease cause and repair was finally found.

      You're welcome to visit and I'll gladly show you.

      If what you say is true, then that is a good "find"; however, Unless the part do the trace that breaks is under the Meson chip, and with the crack being so vanishingly small, why aren't you just scraping off the solder mask over the affected part of the trace and employing the "blob of solder" patch technique, instead of messing with what I assume is a "wire-wrap wire" patch?

    190. Re:Intentionally poor headline by inflex · · Score: 1

      The problem is the chip-overhang, the Meson chip itself obscures the entire area. The balls are about 0.25mm diameter, the trace is about 0.1mm width and maybe 1.5mm long. The trace separation can manifest anywhere from ball pad edge up to typically about half way along towards the via.

      Blobbing / bridging doesn't really behave predictably enough at these scales and it's not unusual for the said bridge to itself crack (previously when people just replaced Meson this in some ways was what was happening). Usual repair is to solder a suitable length of 40~42AWG / 0.1~0.06mm dia wire to the pad, then run it up close to the via and typically overlaying the whole track as a suitable reinforcement against the tension (some people put a bend in the wire for added "flexibility" ).

      I would not call this a design fault from incompetence, rather it's just one of those faults that sometimes happen in complex designs due to unforeseeable manifestation of factors (happens with cars, planes, and many other things). With phones pushing hard on the edge of manufacturing densities it's not entirely surprising that something like this occurs, just unfortunate in this case it happened to manifest in a crucial area rather than some benign way in another portion of the assembly.

    191. Re: Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are referring to the "Touch Disease" issue, that was not a Design problem, nor a Component-Choice problem; but rather a Contract Manufacturing issue, and/or a PCB/Touch-Controller "Coplanarity" issue (i.e. Warped PCBs), exacerbated by RoHS soldering.

      Yes so the devices suffering it were poorly built, this should be covered under warranty.

      Other phones/tablets have suffered the same issues; but they don't get catchy names attached to their problems; just random internet-forum posts, so they don't come to enough people's attention.

      The iPhone is the most popular, most profitable and biggest selling smartphone in the world so yes, it tends to get held to a higher standard. That is part of why people buy them, because they expect a higher quality product that doesn't suffer the issues of cheap, poorer quality devices.

    192. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if that is actually representative of what the customer base can expect and not just an outlier case then there's no reason not to make an official longer warranty period.

    193. Re:Intentionally poor headline by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forced to own a cell phone.

    194. Re:Intentionally poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So buy the extended warranty. Or do you expect to get it for free, like a greedy bastard?
      Buy a used car with a guarantee, and you can get a price reduction if the guarantee is dropped. Or a price increase if the guarantee is extended. European consumers might be of a single mind on this, American consumers and voters are not.

  2. I don't see it by makerfixer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary makes a bold claim and then gives the legal nuance which was "just because someone sold you our phone with an X year contract doesn't mean we give you an automatic X year warranty." Suddenly most people look at the actual statement and say "well, yeah, of course they're right about that" and move on.

    1. Re:I don't see it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why accept such shitty consumer protection? You should demand European style protections - minimum 2 year warranty and where a device is tied to a contract it must last at least as long as the contract or the contract ends.

      Why do you put up with this crap? Do you think it saves you money?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:I don't see it by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look at the flip side of that:
      Joe Sixpack buys an iPhone from ATT and it comes locked into a 2 year contract (because it's subsidized). Joe didn't buy the phone from Apple, and true to some people who call the Internet "the google" and similar things, thinks of his phone as his "ATT iPhone" not "Apple iPhone".

      Now the phone takes a shit at day 366, there are still 364 days remaining in his contract, but the phone is out of warranty. Joe is now officially screwed and either must:
      A) buy a retail phone
      B) break his contract and start a new one with a subsidised phone
      C) get a replacement phone, but tack on an additional 2 years on his existing contract (not sure if ATT offers this, but they used to)

      It is not unreasonable for Joe to expect the warranty of the phone to equal the duration of the service contract. Whether or not that's Apple's issue is between Apple and ATT. I would be inclined to require the contract provider to be the one required to warranty the devices under the contract and to deal with the OEM/ODM on the customers behalf if the device was still within manufacturer warranty.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re: I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had a problem with any phone lasting at least 3 years. I don't know why Apple would refuse to warranty their phones past one year. Throwing out a phone after a year is decidedly NOT good for the planet, despite their claim to care about the planet.

    4. Re: I don't see it by DewDude · · Score: 1

      AT&T doesn't subsidize anymore. They finance the hardware.

    5. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because people are dumb and don't realize that you don't actually need a contract. I have been a customer of my cellular provider for over 13 years now and not one has been on any sort of contract. I buy my phones separately from the phone plan that i get. People don't seem to realize that this gives you more bargaining power for the price of your service (for which i pay much lower than the advertised price). This also exposes the flaw in the European way of thinking of things, that your device and service must be tied together.

      When it comes to cellphones, everyone needs to think of it as two separate purchases, one for the device and the other for the service. by keeping those two trains of thought separate a person is able to get a much better deal over letting the service provider bundle them together. As such people should then consider things such as warranty and reputation for longevity into their purchases.

      Why do you put up with service providers tying devices to your contract? do you think it saves you money?

      A contract is all fine and good when you are getting a phone initially, but once you have been with your service provider for more than a year it is a hindrance.

    6. Re:I don't see it by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because a lot of Americans fall into the Libertarian "business transactions are between you and the business, not the government" trap, even when it severely disadvantages them.

    7. Re: I don't see it by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      having your government mandate all warranty lengths is silly

      Not really. Consider the environmental implications of minimum warranty lengths. Giving companies strong incentives to make their products durable helps to reduce the accumulation of electronic waste to recycle (or landfill, but see the WEEE Directive). Recycling is better than landfill, but it's still not entirely clean. Protecting the environment is in the long-term interests of the populace, so governments should be doing it.

      A two year warranty would create the same issue if the user thinks it should be warrantied for as long as they are financing it through a third party.

      I think you managed to read straight past GP's

      and where a device is tied to a contract it must last at least as long as the contract or the contract ends.

    8. Re:I don't see it by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      In the context of the lawsuit, this is in the US for which the standard is 1 year. If this was in Europe, I believe Apple has to honor a 2 year warranty. Also in terms of legal standards, the length of a 3rd party contract for a product is not tied to the warranty on that product from the manufacturer. For example, most automobiles have different limits on their warranties however that warranty limit is not the same as the term of the auto loan you have with a financial institution that may not be your automobile manufacturer. That's what the plaintiffs are arguing: An iPhone's warranty should be the same as the cellular contract that the plaintiff entered into with Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary makes a bold claim and then gives the legal nuance which was "just because someone sold you our phone with an X year contract doesn't mean we give you an automatic X year warranty." Suddenly most people look at the actual statement and say "well, yeah, of course they're right about that" and move on.

      Yep. this:

      Apple's motion to dismiss in that case noted that the plaintiffs' phones broke more than a year after they were purchased, which is after the warranty expired. If your phone breaks after the warranty is up, well, you're out of luck, Apple argues.

      This is true for anything a consumer buys. If it has a defined warranty period, and something breaks after that period ends, touch luck!

    10. Re: I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm, we don't take environmental considerations into account in America. That would be silly and anti-profit.

    11. Re:I don't see it by Christian+Smith · · Score: 2

      Why accept such shitty consumer protection? You should demand European style protections - minimum 2 year warranty and where a device is tied to a contract it must last at least as long as the contract or the contract ends.

      Why do you put up with this crap? Do you think it saves you money?

      Marked as a troll? Really?

      My opinion is the phone should indeed last as long as the contract. The phone is part of the contract, and once the phone breaks, the provider is no longer holding up their end of the contract, so should either replace the phone or release the contract.

      But, and I'm not defending Apple here, the customer beef should be with the contract provider in that case(as it would be under European consumer laws), not Apple.

      Of course, if the phone is bought out of contact, and is warranted for 1 year, then 1 year it is. Buy a better phone, and spend you money elsewhere.

    12. Re:I don't see it by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      And if Apple didn't have direct relationships with the carriers, I would tend to agree with you. Those who seem to have a different opinion are getting modded down. And the summary was flamebait (too bad we can't moderate articles or editors). It doesn't make sense to have a finance contract longer than the expected life of an item. You would laugh at the idea of a 30 year fixed *auto loan* We are, however, seeing similarly ridiculous things in automobiles. 60 month loan with a 36 month warranty? That's definitely nonsense. Even seeing 72 month auto loans out there. In the case of automobiles, the dealer has a relationship with both the *bank* *and* the *manufacturer* so they are in a unique position to see that this is nonsense. In this case, it seems reasonable to hold the dealers accountable. You sold it with a 72 month finance contract, manufacturer warrants for 36 months, so the dealer has to cover the gap. The manufacturer has no visibility to the financing, so it's unfair to expect them to change warranty policies. This would also be reasonable with phones. But there is a slight difference. Apple makes *special* versions of the phone for the *express* purpose of these types of finance arrangements. You will see a huge price difference in carrier-locked vs. unlocked phones. So in this case the manufacturer is complicit and I see nothing wrong with also holding them accountable.

    13. Re:I don't see it by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      In my other post, I generally agreed with you. Remember, though, that Apple makes a *special* ATT version for these contracts. If this was a standard unlocked iPhone, I think you would be spot on. But if you are going to make a version designed for two-year financing, then it seems reasonable to warrant it for two years!

    14. Re:I don't see it by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

      No.

      The summary quotes marketing hype, "the highest quality and most durable devices. We do this because it's better for the customer, for the iPhone, and for the planet." and then quotes Apple's defense when the phone doesn't meet marketing hype. "the highest quality and most durable devices" tells me that the phone should last between 5 years and 20 years. That's how long "most" of my devices last. Most of the devices that I purchase get replaced by newer, better, more efficient products and not because they break.

      I am not saying that a company needs to warranty their product forever but when your marketing states something like the above it better be better than average. Should they be compensated now that is another matter.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    15. Re:I don't see it by sabri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because a lot of Americans fall into the Libertarian "business transactions are between you and the business, not the government" trap

      Because in general it is not the government's business to interfere with private agreements. If you and I agree to something, we should not need the government's permission.

      , even when it severely disadvantages them.

      In this case, it does not. The system works as designed and the courts are now going to determine whether or not Apple's point of view (that an iPhone cannot be guaranteed to work after 1 year) is reasonable or not. This is based on general principles of reasonableness, not on a codified mandate for consumer warranties.

      We don't need the government to create laws that "protect" us, because those laws will have side effects.

      Don't believe me? Let me give you one example. It's somewhat off topic and may start a flame war, but that is not my intention. In my home country, the unions have been successful in creating very strong labor protection laws. In short, once you hire someone on a permanent contract, it becomes very difficult to fire them. That resulted in employers being careful in giving permanent contracts, and opting for temporary contracts which kept getting extended. Then the government created new laws to prevent that from happening, by mandating a permanent contract after three extensions. And guess what? Do you think more people got permanent contracts? No. "Disposable" workers that are easily replaced where replaced after three contracts. In California, where I live, there is the principle of at-will employment. This means (explaining for non-US person), that I can get hired and fired at any time. And you know what: that flexibility causes businesses to hire without giving it a second thought. No bullshit with temporary contracts needed, because everything is flexible.

      That is the net result of government interference, no matter how well these laws are meant.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    16. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubber mallets cost very little and are very re-usable. They're what you use to ensure things fail while still under warranty.

      If Apple doesn't want to warranty their hardware for the usable lifetime of the locked-in contract it's paired with, then they can replace it on day 364 each time.

    17. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with Libertainism? Ayn Rand has yet to be proven wrong in any of her assertions. Government is there to ensure that business runs effectively, and nothing else.

    18. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C) get a replacement phone, but tack on an additional 2 years on his existing contract

      Care to bet this is the idea? Force Joe Sixpack to buy a new phone every year while keeping him tied to the network.

    19. Re:I don't see it by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      A million times this.

      If you're buying your phone from your service provider, you're getting soaked. Particularly if that purchase ties you into a service contract.

    20. Re:I don't see it by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      (because it's subsidized)

      It's not subsidized. They've given you a loan.

    21. Re: I don't see it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Okay, same deal then. It's still AT&T's phone until it's paid for. Customer should be able to take the phone back to AT&T and AT&T should deal with Apple.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    22. Re:I don't see it by richy+freeway · · Score: 2

      This also exposes the flaw in the European way of thinking of things, that your device and service must be tied together.

      Not in the UK. I've run on cheap pay as you go packages for as long as I can remember and buy my phone whenever I decide it's time for a new phone. Phone is 2 years old and showing no signs of giving up yet.

      Currently paying £10 a month for 500 minutes, unlimited SMS and 2GB of data. No contract so I can just walk away to another service provider whenever I feel like it, or adjust my package up or down to suit my requirements that month.

    23. Re: I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only an irresponsible fuck would throw out a phone. There are ways to recycle phones, and even make money doing so. Your argument about "good for the planet" has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic.

    24. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not unreasonable for Joe to expect the warranty of the phone to equal the duration of the service contract. Whether or not that's Apple's issue is between Apple and ATT.

      Is it between Apple and ATT? Apple makes a product, Apple says it has a 1 year warranty. ATT sells that product, but they do it on a contract longer than 1 year. While superficially it may seem "reasonable" that Joe wants a longer warranty, who the hell promised him one? Neither Apple nor ATT did.

      Unless ATT has convinced Apple to provide a warranty as long as the term that ATT is signing up the contract, Apple has no obligations to extend their warranty to match the contract ATT sold. In fact, other than honoring their own warranty, ATT selling something doesn't confer any new obligations on Apple.

      While Joe nay feel he is owed a warranty for as long as his contract, the company who made the product doesn't offer that, and had nothing to do with how long of a contract you signed with ATT.

      Think of it this way .. say you can't afford a car, but you can find some dodgy financing company who will give you a 15 year car loan. Do you really think the car company needs to extend the warranty for the duration of your financing? Because you signed a contract to spend 15 years paying for the car? Why? What magical unicorn of a law would allow a vendor to confer obligations on the manufacturer by making promises to the consumer??? There is no such thing.

      I side with Apple here, their warranty has nothing whatsoever do with the the contract duration you have with ATT. Suing Apple for a longer warranty you believe entitled to that Apple never promised you ... well, that's wishful thinking.

      Apple sells phones to ATT. ATT sells them plus a contract to their customers. But ATT doesn't have the power to confer obligations onto Apple that Apple didn't sign up for. If this was the case, every company who sold an extended warranty would be binding the manufacturer to honor that extended warranty. And that would be completely fucking insane.

      If Apple only promised a 1 year warranty, they have nothing whatsoever do with the duration of contracts ATT has with its customers. The over-reach of forcing Apple to extend its warranty because people feel the warranty should match their contract would be staggering in terms of its implications.

      I would be inclined to require the contract provider to be the one required to warranty the devices under the contract and to deal with the OEM/ODM on the customers behalf if the device was still within manufacturer warranty.

      And on what legal basis could you possibly do anything else?? Your feels on the subject? Unless ATT made Apple sign something saying that Apple had to support the devices for an extended period of time ... WTF does that have to do with Apple?

      But, really, why would ATT be required to warranty the phone after the manufacturer warranty? "We just sell 'em your honor, we don't make 'em." Oh, sure, they'll charge you $10/month or something stupid for an extended coverage warranty. But they're not going to just give you that. Why would they?

      ATT has no obligation to warranty your phone. It likely says so right in your contract you signed with them. Apple has no obligations to give you a longer warranty because you feel entitled to it.

      Anything else is just people making shit up and failing to grasp the contract they signed. This can really only go one way, and that's in favor of Apple. And the issue would be the same for any manufacturer -- a Microsoft phone or a car would all be the exact same thing.

    25. Re:I don't see it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I get a lot of mod-bombing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:I don't see it by BenFenner · · Score: 1

      I could have sworn Massachusetts passed a consumer protection law a while back that required any and all consumer products to be covered by a 4-year warranty, regardless of how that product is covered in other states. I can't find anything on it though. Anyone else remember this?

    27. Re:I don't see it by UnknowingFool · · Score: 0

      My opinion is the phone should indeed last as long as the contract. The phone is part of the contract, and once the phone breaks, the provider is no longer holding up their end of the contract, so should either replace the phone or release the contract.

      Let's look at that: The consumer made a contract with a cellular company that is not Apple but that contract should automatically force Apple into extending their warranty for whatever the length of that contract even though Apple did not agree to any of the terms. By definition that contract is a 3rd party contract and legally no one is ever beholden to agree to terms that they didn't agree.

      Here's why it's not done. By analogy if you finance a brand new car with Bank of America for a 7 year loan, you're arguing that Honda is automatically required to extend their 3 yr/5 yr warranties to 7 years even though they didn't agree to any extension. In some cases, 8 years.

      However if you want your phone warrantied for the term of the contract you can pay for it. I would argue that in many cases those warranties are not worth it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    28. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the net result of government interference, no matter how well these laws are meant.

      What you need to consider is the net result of government non-interference.

      The business burns the workers (figuratively), so the workers burn the boss (literally).

      Things work much better when they don't need to escalate to that point.
      And that is very easy to accomplish with simple regulation.

    29. Re:I don't see it by grif_91 · · Score: 1

      How many limited warranties do you see that cover "accidental" damage like that, and not just manufacturing defects? And secondly, the replacement device will have the same warranty as the original, meaning that it ends on the same day.

    30. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implied warranty of merchantability applies.

      Any device sold has to be fit for purpose. If the phones are failing in large percentage after one year, then it is not, given that the lifespan of most phones is considerably longer.
      Given Apple's advertising and the contract length, it is reasonable that most, if not all, phones should work for several years.

      Car companies get caught with this all the time - I have had both Chrysler and Ford provide free warranty extensions for defective designs that showed up in failures outside the warranty period.
       

    31. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, the phone may very well have an implied warranty of merchantability. That is what the lawsuit will decide.

    32. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop at 2 years? Why not lifetime?

    33. Re:I don't see it by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Why do you put up with this crap?

      Because there's nothing (or very little) that ordinary people can do about it.

    34. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the context of the lawsuit, this is in the US for which the standard is 1 year. If this was in Europe, I believe Apple has to honor a 2 year warranty.

      No product defects last well beyond the warranty, if this was europe and the phones were 3 years old, Apple would still have to replace the phones, because they were not manufactured to the standard the were sold for.

    35. Re:I don't see it by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what you seem to think, iPhones sold under contract from Apple ARE covered under warranty for the length of the contract. AppleCare+ (i.e. an extended warranty) has been a part of those contracts from the very start.

      The people in this suit were sold iPhones under contract from their carriers, not Apple. I'm not opposed to warranties lasting the length of a contract's term, but shouldn't that burden be on the one offering the contract, rather than on the manufacturer?

    36. Re: I don't see it by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It is NOT 'AT&T's phone until it's paid for'. It is YOUR phone. Where does this idiotic 'if you owe money on something you don't own it' come from?

    37. Re:I don't see it by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      Is this the same Ayn Rand who parasitically decided to use her husband's name (O'Connor) when she (and Frank both) decided to steal/take/use both Social Security and Medicare after her 1974 lung cancer diagnosis? You know, the one where reality sort of rudely interrupted her ideological pipe-dreams? Where she realized she was actually human and needed help from other humans? The same Ayn Rand who said there is "no such thing as the public interest” and programs like Social Security and Medicare steal from “creators” and illegitimately redistribute their wealth? That Ayn Rand? Funny how reality intrudes on someone's fantasy.

      And the original system you're referring to was called "social libertarianism". Thought out in the late 1850s in France (of all places) that identified four (not three) structures that caused personal liberties to be eroded ... government, military, the church, and guess what else? The free market/capitalism. So-called libertarians I hear blathering on about how the first three need to be changed, always conveniently seem to have forgotten that last one.

      --
      DaveyJJ
    38. Re:I don't see it by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that? When I did all the math there was zero incentive to buy a new iPhone outright. Apple and phone companies offered the same payment plan, Apples included Apple Care and if you purchased Apple Care separately then it was the exact same price either way over the two year contract and the same cost if bought outright and with Apple Care.

    39. Re:I don't see it by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I think that for two reasons: because you're on a payment plan, and because you get locked into a carrier contract.

    40. Re: I don't see it by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      "It is NOT 'AT&T's phone until it's paid for'. It is YOUR phone. Where does this idiotic 'if you owe money on something you don't own it' come from?"

      Well considering ATT won't unlock the bootloader to allow switch to another carrier until the phone is paid for, and they would terminate your service and send a bill for the full amount if you failed to make payments or return the phone, that sounds like it's not really "mine". My definition of "mine" is something that cannot be legally claimed by someone else.

    41. Re:I don't see it by paulej72 · · Score: 1

      Why stop at 2 years? Why not lifetime?

      I always read lifetime warranties as the the lifetime of the device.

    42. Re: I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was commenting about Apple's actual quote: "the highest quality and most durable devices. We do this because it's better for the customer, for the iPhone, and for the planet." I am specifically calling bullshit on the final assertion. And recycling a smartphone after 1 year doesn't make it good for the Earth, it only makes it less bad.

    43. Re:I don't see it by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes but that is a different argument. You could argue that Apple must cover warranty repairs due to defects discovered beyond the warranty period. But an argument made is that Apple should warranty the device based on the contract the consumer made with the cellular company to which Apple didn't agree.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    44. Re: I don't see it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If it can legally be taken from you or be made not to function, it is not yours.

      I bet bws111 thinks he owns the home he is still paying the bank for, as well. Perhaps he should stop making those payments, just to check?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    45. Re:I don't see it by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      They used to give you discounts off phones for signing a contract - but they didn't give you a discount in service price for running contract-free. During that era, I was always under contract. The day they stopped giving me stuff, I stopped signing contracts. Today, they pretend that financing your phone is a favor that you'd be an idiot to pass up.

    46. Re: I don't see it by bws111 · · Score: 2

      ANYTHING can be legally taken away from you. Try not paying your taxes, or having a judgement against you, or declaring bankruptcy. A lien on something in no way means that ownership has been transferred to someone else, it just means that you have offered up the property as collateral on a loan. Collateral just means that IF you fail to make the payments, you AGREE that ownership of the thing will be TRANSFERRED to the lender. UNTIL that time, it is YOURS.

      This 'if you can't do xxx then you don't own it' is beyond stupid. The idiotic claim in this case is that AT&T owns the phone, not me. Can AT&T use the phone? Can AT&T sell the phone to someone else?

      And of COURSE you own the home you are making payments on. If you don't own it, who does? Can the bank rent your home to someone? Can it sell it to someone? Can it raze your home? Can it do anything at all that would normally be associated with ownership? The answer to all of those is a resounding NO. Why? Because it is NOT THEIRS. MY name is on the legal document known as a deed, not the banks. They are just listed as a lienholder, not an 'owner' in any way.

    47. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why accept such shitty consumer protection? You should demand European style protections - minimum 2 year warranty and where a device is tied to a contract it must last at least as long as the contract or the contract ends.

      Why do you put up with this crap? Do you think it saves you money?

      Marked as a troll? Really?

      My opinion is the phone should indeed last as long as the contract. The phone is part of the contract, and once the phone breaks, the provider is no longer holding up their end of the contract, so should either replace the phone or release the contract.

      But, and I'm not defending Apple here, the customer beef should be with the contract provider in that case(as it would be under European consumer laws), not Apple.

      Of course, if the phone is bought out of contact, and is warranted for 1 year, then 1 year it is. Buy a better phone, and spend you money elsewhere.

      The language of the contract says otehrwise.
      So why would your gut feeling superceed what was agreed to in the contract?

    48. Re:I don't see it by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Massachusetts... the politicians probably said they were going to do this, but completely empty platitudes are normal in State representation there.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    49. Re: I don't see it by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      The problem with this line of reasoning is that AT&T's agreement with Apple at the launch of the original Iphone was that Apple would handle all warranty and service work on the iphone. This was in the original contract, and I doubt that it has changed.

    50. Re: I don't see it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      A lien is shared ownership. You can't sell property with a lien on it and, if you can't sell it, you don't own it. Another way of looking at it is that you own the rights, but the lienholder owns the property until you've met your obligation to them. A simplification, of course, as the right to resell the property belongs to neither party when a lien is involved; until, of course, you default on your end of the deal, then the lienholder owns the property and the rights that go with it.

      A lienholder is closer to owning your property free-and-clear than you are; you have to make many payments to own it fully, but you only have to miss one or two for them to own it.

      Think about that next time you think you own something you're financing.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    51. Re: I don't see it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yes, that clause was there at Apple's insistence, so they could control the experience. For the owner of the phone. Which, while financed, is AT&T.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    52. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, in New Zealand we have the "Consumer Guarantees Act" which states with in that a product must be fit for purpose, free of defect, and be durable for a reasonable period.

      So, a $20 throw away phone from China, you could accept that 12-18 months was realistic, for an iPhone it will be 3-4 years.

      Whiteware is up to 10 years, same with TVs.
      They can be held liable for additional costs, eg legal costs, travel, hire of a replacement.
      The options available are repair, replace, refund (and store credit is NOT a refund).

    53. Re: I don't see it by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Where does this idiotic 'if you owe money on something you don't own it' come from?

      Car loan: you don't hold title, nor do you have pink slip until it's paid off. It's not your car.
      Home loan: Title is in escrow until paid off. You don't actually own the home till it's paid off.
      Rent to own places: again, you don't own it till it's paid off.

      There are several cases where possession != ownership.

      *however*
      In all those cases if the (thing) has (bork bork bork) and it's after any warranty period then it's on you to fix too.
      Classic case: Car has 5yr/100,000mi Warranty, but Joe Sixpack has shit credit and took a 72 month loan. That last year of the loan the car is out of warranty and still not legally Joe's car yet.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    54. Re:I don't see it by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, ATT has moved away from subsidy phones and on to separating the financing of the phone and the communications service contract. I did not know this. I buy my phones outright, and have done so for the last 6 years or so, thus my information was dated...

      I assume ATT did this to be able to advertise lower monthly contract prices since the phone is no longer paid for via subsidy.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    55. Re:I don't see it by sjames · · Score: 1

      The sad part though is the corporations even existing is already government interference. God doesn't hand out corporate charters and did not create corporate persons. A proper Libertarian should object to corporate entities even existing.

    56. Re: I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flaw? You don't get it do you?
      - If you buy a device, it has to be guaranteed for 2 years.
      - If you buy a contract with your device, the device has to last the duration of the contract.
      What mental gymnastic are you doing to see a flaw in there ?

      I don't think it's rocket science but maybe it is for some.

    57. Re:I don't see it by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Because a lot of Americans fall into the Libertarian "business transactions are between you and the business, not the government" trap, even when it severely disadvantages them.

      Half way there.

      A Libertarian is someone who wants the government to butt out when they're doing well but demands government protection when things turn against them.

      I'm yet to see a Libertarian refuse a government handout (doing so would be kind of anti-libertarian as you're refusing free money, hypocrisy built into the system).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    58. Re:I don't see it by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Which you can pay off for the normal remaining price of the plan and technically you aren't on contract. The only contract is if you do the "some money down on an iphone and then lower monthly payments" but that way actually does cost you more, but I rarely see it available from cell phone companies nowadays.

    59. Re:I don't see it by houghi · · Score: 1

      That getting hired is not the issue. The issue is that they drop you as well, because it rains or not or for whatever reason.
      You explain it what the rights of the company is. The laws are there not to protect the companies, they are there to protect the people.

      And you can still hire and fire people where I am from. The reason people now use temps for the first few weeks is that before you could fire them right away in the first 6 weeks. Now that has become more expensive (not harder). This goes both ways. People also can leave easier.

      As it is an extra cost, not many companies are stupid enough to do this long term and those that do it now already did it before as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    60. Re:I don't see it by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why do you put up with this crap? Do you think it saves you money?

      It probably does. Warranties are basically insurance policies. Premiums are calculated so the insurance company makes a profit, which means that it's always cheaper to drop the insurance and just pay for repairs or whatever. Insurance is for cases where such payment would be unduly difficult for you, so you pay someone else to absorb the risk.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re: I don't see it by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Car loan: I hold the title, but the lien is on it.

      Home loan: I hold the title. It's mine.

      Rent to own: it's theirs until paid off. That's one reason I don't like rent-to-own.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:I don't see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no. You get 2 years only if you purchase as a consumer (end user). If you make the purchase as a company, even as a sole proprietor, you get only the manufacturer's 1 year warranty. Been there, done that with the very first (2012) Retina MacBook Pro. The screen was defective (ghosting) but since it only got so unusable as to warrant a replacement just two weeks over a year since I purchased it I was 880 Euros out of pocket. Before you ask, no, in my country (Greece) there was no such thing as Apple Care or equivalent at the time and no, you cannot buy it at a later time (it has to be bought with the hardware).

    63. Re: I don't see it by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Who holds the car title during a loan?
      Most lenders will hold the title of the vehicle for the entire duration of the car loan. After the loan is paid off, the lender removes itself from the title and sends a copy of the document to the owner. While receiving a copy of the title is one way to be sure that a car loan is paid off, another is to review your credit report and see if the car loan shows as having been paid in full.

      https://www.freecreditreport.com/blog/who-keeps-the-car-title-during-financing/

      Mortgages and deeds of trust both grant the title for your property to your lender until the loan is paid. A mortgage is an agreement made between you and the lender. A mortgage grants ownership of your home to the lender which will transfer the title back to you after the loan is paid.

      http://oureverydaylife.com/bank-hold-deed-until-house-paid-off-11688.html
      In both cases you do NOT own the property you are using.
      There are corner cases, but they are few.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  3. Author not Reader by Luthair · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jason Koebler is the author of the article, which is true for all his submissions..... which makes him a spammer.

    1. Re:Author not Reader by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      I'd +5 informative you if I could.

      Why is /. letting authors post their own clickbait?

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:Author not Reader by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Then again... TFA is by Nicole Nguyen... so...

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    3. Re:Author not Reader by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Note he linked to another story too, but the primary link is his own.

    4. Re:Author not Reader by gnunick · · Score: 1

      Why is /. letting authors post their own clickbait?

      Um well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure /. doesn't let article authors do any such thing. They can and do submit their own articles, very frequently--as can you.

      If you don't like what ends up on the front page, blame the /. editors, not the authors.

      If I wrote an article I thought might be interesting to the /. crowd, I'd sure as hell submit it myself.

      What, are authors supposed to hire shills to do it for them? Apparently, if they just used a fake name it'd make some people happy.

      --
      I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Author not Reader by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The site is meant to have stories submitted by its readers so readers direct the type of content. So maybe the authors job is just to write interesting stories and some reader would submit it?

      Even if the /. editors let them get away with it they're still spammers. I'm attempting to do my part and flagging them a spam in the firehose but can't do it alone. /shrug

      Perhaps the most egregious are the two spammers from Wired who even sink so low as to upvote each other.

    6. Re:Author not Reader by gnunick · · Score: 1

      The site is meant to have stories submitted by its readers so readers direct the type of content. So maybe the authors job is just to write interesting stories and some reader would submit it?

      Aside from the notion of "news for nerds", does it say anywhere what Slashdot is "meant" to be or have?

      But honestly, even if I actually thought it went against everything Slashdot was "meant" to be, I still couldn't get too worked up about it. I've been seeing stories submitted by their authors (or else the same person always submitting stories from the same site, but perhaps the authors were different) as long as I can remember, and I've been around a bit longer than I've had this user id.

      I swear some of them were decent articles, too.

      Joking! Who reads the articles?

      --
      I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
  4. I don't see the problem here... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you buy an iPhone, as I understand it, the warranty is for one year, unless you buy extensions. So why would anyone expect the warranty to be longer than one year (assuming one did not buy any warranty extensions)? To me it looks more like the problem of Apple corporation has a lot of money, so let's try this approach to a lawsuit and see how much money we can get out of Apple.

    1. Re:I don't see the problem here... by geekmux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you buy an iPhone, as I understand it, the warranty is for one year, unless you buy extensions. So why would anyone expect the warranty to be longer than one year (assuming one did not buy any warranty extensions)? To me it looks more like the problem of Apple corporation has a lot of money, so let's try this approach to a lawsuit and see how much money we can get out of Apple.

      Semantics aside, the bottom line is if Apple is going to boldly claim that they make "the highest quality and most durable devices", then they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year. Offer a warranty to match your claims of durability, or stop with the bullshit marketing.

      I have other electronic products that are factory warrantied up to a decade, and was included in the base price. It can be done.

    2. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year."

      and they probably could be able to offer it for more than a year, but they wont because they don't have to. People will continue to buy their products and on top of that they are able to sell warranty extensions which nets them even more money!

      PS, ALL marketing is BS, because if it were true, then there would be no need for it.

    3. Re:I don't see the problem here... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ... Semantics aside, the bottom line is if Apple is going to boldly claim that they make "the highest quality and most durable devices", then they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year. ...

      I agree that in an ideal world the warranty should match (or come close to matching) the marketing-speak. But it doesn't. Apple sells their devices more as fashion than technology, Being fashionable is one of the ways to justify paying the high prices of Apple devices. . That aside, the one-year warranty is the one currently in effect. So I continue to look at this lawsuit as a money grab.

    4. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Had a funny exchange in college about marketing slogans. I spilled some hydrochloric acid on my Dungarees and when they dissolved upon being laundered I emailed Lee to ask about the "Can't Bust 'Em" slogan they were using at the time. They wrote a surprisingly length and polite response explaining that their slogan was not an implied warranty but instead represented the "indomitable spirit of Buddy Lee" and that my only recourse would be to try to return them to the point of sale.

    5. Re:I don't see the problem here... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      "they should be able to offer a factory warranty longer than a year."

      and they probably could be able to offer it for more than a year, but they wont because they don't have to. People will continue to buy their products and on top of that they are able to sell warranty extensions which nets them even more money!

      I guess asking Apple to back up their "durable" product with an equivalent warranty is too much to ask. Fuck the customer, because demand. Greed is all that matters.

      Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    6. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like their "bullshit marketing" then don't buy their phones. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy an iPhone. Move on instead of posting your useless dribble repeatedly on /.

    7. Re:I don't see the problem here... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If you don't like their "bullshit marketing" then don't buy their phones. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy an iPhone. Move on instead of posting your useless dribble repeatedly on /.

      Wake the hell up. The rest of the industry is no different with their blatant collusion with hardware warranties, contract lengths, and pricing. Doesn't mean it's right, and it sure as hell doesn't leave the consumer with options.

    8. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have other electronic products that are factory warrantied up to a decade, and was included in the base price.

      Are they mobile phones? It's one thing if an electronic device is going to sit on a shelf or under a desk. It's another if it's going to be thrown in a pocket or backpack, knocked around a car, rained on, etc...

      Samsung mobile device warranty: 1 Year
      HTC: 1 Year
      Google Pixel: 1 Year
      Sony XPeria: 1 Year
      Motorola: 1 Year
      Microsoft Lumia - 1 Year

      Notice a trend?

    9. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Devices often have an implied warranty of merchantability.
      If large number of the phone model are failing due to a design defect, they may very well have to provide a repair/replacement.

      This happens with cars all the time.
      My car's head gasket goes just after the warranty period - oh well. Thousands of people's head gaskets go bad the same way on the same model? They are forced to cover it. (thinking of you Ford!)

      My headlight switch is covered the same on on my 2005 Chrysler Town and Country.

    10. Re:I don't see the problem here... by larkost · · Score: 1

      Apple is able to offer longer warrantees, and they do: it is called AppleCare and evidently the customer in question declined to buy it. But warrantees (and more generally insurance) are always about the statistics. Apple has calculated that guaranteeing the phone for 3 years is going to add more to their costs, so they charge more (of course there is also more profit in there). If you are arguing that Apple (and presumably their competitors) should be required to have a longer warrantee, then they are going to have to raise prices.

      There may be good side effects to that (manufactures building more durable goods), but let us not forget that those goods are going to come at a greater price.

    11. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then they are going to have to raise prices

      Last-minute Apple Keynote Addendum
      We are now offering iPhone X+, the phone that comes with 3 years warranty out of the box. MSRP will be $[insert iPhone X MSRP + Apple Care MSRP in one lump sum]
      In addition, we are also offering iPhone 8++, also with 3 years warranty. MSRP, $[insert iPhone 8+ MSRP + Apple Care MSRP]

      Problem solved. NEXT!!

    12. Re:I don't see the problem here... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      When I bought an iPhone 6s plus they told me the warranty was 30 days and applecare took it out to a year, so only 11 more months. Used to be 1 year and 1 more year.

    13. Re:I don't see the problem here... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If you are arguing that Apple (and presumably their competitors) should be required to have a longer warrantee, then they are going to have to raise prices.

      Claiming they'll be forced to raise prices is a rather tough sell when talking about the richest companies on the planet. Apple eating the cost of 2-year warranty claims is going to bankrupt them? I think not.

      There may be good side effects to that (manufactures building more durable goods), but let us not forget that those goods are going to come at a greater price.

      They already claim they make durable goods. The only side-effect I want to see from that is for them to prove it by backing up that claim with a reasonable warranty without making the consumer pay more for what amounts to a marketing lie.

    14. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be useless drivel, not dribble... stupid autocorrect.

    15. Re:I don't see the problem here... by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      I have other electronic products that are factory warrantied up to a decade, and was included in the base price. It can be done.

      Is the whole product warrantied up to a decade, though? Car analogy: car warranties of 3 and 5 years are quite common now but scratch the surface and you start finding asterisks such as: * car batteries have a 1 year warranty; * key fob batteries have no warranty; * tyres have no warranty; * windscreens have no warranty (unless you pay extra). Just how much of the car is actually covered under the 3-5 years?

    16. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      When I bought an iPhone 6s plus they told me the warranty was 30 days

      No. They didn't. Even refurbed iPhones have a one year warranty.

    17. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had a funny exchange in college about marketing slogans. I spilled some hydrochloric acid on my Dungarees and when they dissolved upon being laundered I emailed Lee to ask about the "Can't Bust 'Em" slogan they were using at the time. They wrote a surprisingly length and polite response explaining that their slogan was not an implied warranty but instead represented the "indomitable spirit of Buddy Lee" and that my only recourse would be to try to return them to the point of sale.

      Not an implied warranty? How exactly should I interpret "Can't Bust 'Em"?? You should have taken their corporate feedback to a social media microphone and broadcast that bullshit response to the world. Then they might have understood what it means to offer a real warranty on their product.

      If I'm ever in the market for dungarees, they will likely be the last vendor I look at.

    18. Re:I don't see the problem here... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I have other electronic products that are factory warrantied up to a decade, and was included in the base price.

      Are they mobile phones? It's one thing if an electronic device is going to sit on a shelf or under a desk. It's another if it's going to be thrown in a pocket or backpack, knocked around a car, rained on, etc...

      Samsung mobile device warranty: 1 Year HTC: 1 Year Google Pixel: 1 Year Sony XPeria: 1 Year Motorola: 1 Year Microsoft Lumia - 1 Year

      Notice a trend?

      Yeah, it's called collusion.

      How many of those vendors specifically defend themselves in court, stating their products are durable?

      That is my point here. Either back up your durable claim with a real warranty that exceeds the rest of the market, or stop with your bullshit marketing.

    19. Re:I don't see the problem here... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      That's what they told me, I knew they were wrong, but they still said it.

    20. Re:I don't see the problem here... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Apple sells on ease of use and quality of manufacture. If the quality is low on a particular product, Apple can fix it or take a reputation hit.

      In other words, they sell with qualities many nerds don't particularly care about, so some nerds come up with unfounded disparaging reasons why people buy them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:I don't see the problem here... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      At what profit point should a company eat any unexpected customer expense? Let's get specific here. Apple is a business. It is the primary purpose of a business to make money. Now, Apple often does eat such costs as part of being nice to their customers, in fact, and if you want a longer warranty you can pay more. In my experience, their stuff is sufficiently reliable that it would have cost my family a lot of money to buy such warranties.

      Apple does make durable goods most of the time. You can find that out by looking at such overall stats as we have. That doesn't mean warranty coverage is free.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:I don't see the problem here... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Have you ever dealt with Apple's customer service? It's great. Apple has also been known to take care of customers at their own expense. Remember the iPhone 4 complaints? Apple gave every purchaser a free iPhone case of pretty good quality. My case was just fine after three years when I got a 5S.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:I don't see the problem here... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. Was this before or after the guy in the 80's Dodge van tried to talk you into buying one of his $25 Rolex watches?

  5. Interesting arguement by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple argues that the company cannot guarantee any iPhone for more than a year.

    I guess they should pull out of the EU then seeing how they are unable to meet the minimum legal required guarantee. Or does the QC department bin the devices and send the good ones to the EU and the crappy ones to the USA where consumers are used to being screwed over and not have any recourse other than costly legal battles or lawyer enriching class actions which may net them a $15 discount coupon?

    1. Re:Interesting arguement by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The part you missed is that this is a lawsuit in the US. The standard in the US is 1 year. So EU standards don't apply to this lawsuit.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Interesting arguement by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      They bake it into the price of the unit. In the UK, te new iPhone X is going to cost 999 GBP, which is equivalent to 1,320 USD. The price in France will be 1159 Euros, which is equivalent to 1379 USD. The price in Germany will be 1149 Euros, or 1367 USD. Sure some of that is accounted for by the VAT, but the VAT in Germany is 19%, which doesn't completely account for the entire price difference. The price in Germanyu based on the US price of 999 USD should be 839.71 Euros + 19% VAT = 999 Euros.

      They are basically making the people pay for the warranty mandated by law in the price of the device. If American laws demanded a higher warranty, they would also have to pay for it in the cost of the product. America has a pretty good deal going, as the initial price is lower, and you can buy an extended warranty if you really see it being worth it.

      Canada, which has similar warranties to the US, has a much closer price, at 1319 CAD which is equivalent to 1080.71 USD.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Interesting arguement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be awesome! Then I would have far less iZombies in my country! :-)

    4. Re:Interesting arguement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the EU standards ARE important because it proves it CAN be done.

      Likewise New Zealand and Australian consumer protection laws do an even better job.

      There is ZERO need to buy extended warranties there, the consumer laws gives the consumer those rights.

      I have had a logic board in a MacBook replaced for free after 3 1/2 years under the Consumer Guarantees Act. And no, you can not contract out of those laws.

    5. Re:Interesting arguement by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh no I didn't miss that. I'm just curious that Apple can't support it's customers in its own country but is happy to support those in others.

    6. Re:Interesting arguement by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      They bake it into the price of the unit. In the UK, te new iPhone X is going to cost 999 GBP, which is equivalent to 1,320 USD.

      Sure if you ignore taxes, regulation and differences in generalised cost of living then yes we'll go with "baked in the price of the unit".

      Did you see further down on the Slashdot front page, there is a new freely available online course in Economics. You should take it.

    7. Re:Interesting arguement by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The term you are ignoring then is "legal obligation"

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Interesting arguement by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No, the EU standards ARE important because it proves it CAN be done.

      Nowhere has Apple argued that the warranty cannot be 2 years. Apple (and other manufacturers) are arguing they are providing the minimum warranty coverage as dictated by law.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Interesting arguement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part you missed is where Apple claims to make quality products, and sells them in multiple markets, some of which require them to put their money where their mouth is. There's a disparity somewhere, and American consumers are getting screwed (well more so than they bargained before when buying a lifestyle brand).

    10. Re:Interesting arguement by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Please tell me how Apple following US legal guidelines in terms of warranty coverage asserts what you claim.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Interesting arguement by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Apple argues that the company cannot guarantee any iPhone for more than a year.

      I guess they should pull out of the EU then seeing how they are unable to meet the minimum legal required guarantee. Or does the QC department bin the devices and send the good ones to the EU and the crappy ones to the USA where consumers are used to being screwed over and not have any recourse other than costly legal battles or lawyer enriching class actions which may net them a $15 discount coupon?

      Doesn't quite work that way with the EU. When the EU goes after you for violating the law, they go after you properly. None of this lawyer enriching class action bollocks, the EU itself takes you to court and returns the money to its members in deductions and rebates.

      Besides Apple wont pull out of the EU, they'll just accept that the phone has a 2 year life in Europe and a 1 year life in the US (unless you buy an extended warranty)... Not like they're the exact same phone, made in the exact same factory, in the exact same part of China or anything.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. 6 Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6 Plus checking in. It's been by far the best phone I've owned. I got it at launch, and it'll be 3 this year with no signs of needing to be replaced.

    1. Re:6 Plus by Falos · · Score: 1

      There are more appropriate apple articles to take your "mine works fine".

      If you can jump across time, you can put it among the other 9000 identical posts in the past. It will be pointless to do so in a different timeline, but it's equally pointless here anyway.

    2. Re:6 Plus by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      How much extra did you spend on the 'case' that you keep it in? About half as much as a year's warranty?

    3. Re:6 Plus by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      6 Plus checking in. It's been by far the best phone I've owned. I got it at launch, and it'll be 3 this year with no signs of needing to be replaced.

      Mine just started suffering from touch disease. Before that, it's been great. Going to replace it with a 7 Plus. The 8 Plus doesn't offer enough compelling differences from the 7 Plus. I don't care about wireless charging or a slightly faster processor. The difference in the camera is enough to choose the 7 Plus over the 6 Plus for me.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:6 Plus by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Speaking for myself, about $40 for the case protecting my iPhone 6+. The case will protect it far longer than the period of any warranty offered for that price. I accidentally dropped it in the stairwell of a parkade once... where it tumbled down a flight and a half of concrete stairs before coming to rest on a landing, and the case protected my phone just fine.

  7. Owning things is the new taboo by Arzaboa · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is certainly a fight that Apple and others would love to win. To now say their devices are only good for one year due to "issue X", creates a steep curve into devices that always shut down just after 1 year. If in fact this were to go through, it wouldn't be far fetched to see companies specifically put in a 1 year "kill switch" so that there was no chance that anyone didn't "upgrade" and pay the fee. At a minimum, that could open up companies from having to deal with patching anything older than a year.

    Its been fairly clear across all industries that companies want you to use only their brand new equipment, nothing second hand. Don't fix your stuff or we'll glue it in place if you try. This is another shot being fired at consumers. It seems like owning things is going to be the new taboo.

    --
    "Laws? We make the laws, its called a contract. Now arbitrate!". - Them

    1. Re: Owning things is the new taboo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so you want to own your equipment, but ignore the stated warranty length of one year and say itâ(TM)s the manufacturers problem if anything goes wrong after your warranty runs out?

      If you are for this lawsuit I canâ(TM)t see how you are on the side of owning vs licensing. The consumer can have their devices fixed by third parties in this case.

    2. Re:Owning things is the new taboo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      l At a minimum, that could open up companies from having to deal with patching anything older than a year.

      By "could" you mean that's the standard now for most cell phones. A 1 year warranty been the standard in the US for a long time.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Owning things is the new taboo by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

      Yes, but most of us do still have the expectation that things will work past a year. Kill switching normalized is more what I was getting at. But a good note.

    4. Re:Owning things is the new taboo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You might have an expectation but legally most companies don't have an obligation. I wouldn't say that there "kill switches" as there is somewhat planned obsolescence. That's why most phone manufacturers are pushing for more features that require more computing power.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re: Owning things is the new taboo by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      The consumer can have their devices fixed by third parties in this case.

      The problem with this is that Apple actively and vigorously works to insure that third party repair services cannot get replacement parts or information on how to service their products.

  8. Buy AppleCare+ for it by phalse+phace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and it's guaranteed to last 2 years (because that's how long it will be warrantied for).

    1. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

      or don't abuse it and it will last longer

    2. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what slashdot and world doesn't understand. People bought high quality sport performance german cars like BMW (the Apple of the car world) and can you slashdotters guess what happens to them lol? I'll give you a little hint, their cars perform better than anyone else's (you can beat a Toy-Yota any day any time with it) however the engines will likely stop working and need maintain much sooner. It's the same with your iphone, it can do things other phones can't way better but you need to be ready to spend your money at the service center for repairs mmmkay slashdotters!!

    3. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      What one thing can iPhone do better than a mid-range Android device?

    4. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      Oh and how does a BMW "beat" a Toyota going fro one stop sign to the next at 25mph?

    5. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why should people have to pay extra for this?

      It's rather simple logic. Apple doesn't make a special iPhone model specifically for the EU and then one specifically for the US or other markets. So, if they can offer a 2-year warranty on devices in the EU, why can't they offer a 2-year warranty on devices in the US or any other market? The obvious reason is they aren't legally required to and they can make more money selling extended warranties and new devices when people drop theirs.

      What you see is the difference between what companies (Apple is hardly the only one) will tell consumers in an effort to make them buy a product, and what the company will actually guarantee about said product. Moral of the story: Advertisers treat the truth like silly putty, stretching and contorting it to the fullest extent they can get away with legally. As a general rule, you should always take whatever marketing hype you hear about a product and cut it in half. You'll be a lot closer to what you'll actually get that way.

    6. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      People bought high quality sport performance german cars like BMW (the Apple of the car world)

      Not hardly. Not at all. Apple products are the Buick equivalent in the car market. Overpriced Chevys that seemingly entitle their owners to act like pricks.

    7. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by chispito · · Score: 1

      So why should people have to pay extra for this?

      I don't think you understand: No matter what the standard warranty is, you will pay for it.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    8. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convince people that you can afford to pay $800+ for something that you could get from Nokia for $40 at Walmart.

    9. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and how does a BMW "beat" a Toyota going fro one stop sign to the next at 25mph?

      "beat a Toyota going fro"

      sounds like racial oppression to me

    10. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      I never do anything to my iphones, keep them in cases, minimize drops, etc. I've always had to take them back in and get a new one within a year. I normally take them back one more time before the applecare runs out as well.

    11. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by Arkham · · Score: 1

      Not get remotely rooted by Blueborne? https://www.armis.com/blueborn...

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    12. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Run iOS? And that's why I'm an Android user.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    13. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security

    14. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Well except that Google has already issued a patch going back to Android Marshmallow. But since it seems Apple never had the vulnerability this is +1 for Apple although I don't have any long-running statistics on security.

    15. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      or don't abuse it and it will last longer

      Warranties aren't for covering abuse. That's insurance.

    16. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by rat_herder · · Score: 1

      Integrate with cloud services that are not ran by an advertising company whose entire existence revolves around monetizing your personal information?
      Provide a secure mobile platform?
      Give me a consistent, easy to use, lag free user interface?
      Provide software updates to improve my device for many years?
      Integrate securely and conveniently my mac laptop?

    17. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by Arkham · · Score: 1

      Well except that Google has already issued a patch going back to Android Marshmallow. But since it seems Apple never had the vulnerability this is +1 for Apple although I don't have any long-running statistics on security.

      The problem as I am sure you know though is that most Android devices will never get that patch. The manufacturer has to take it, then the carrier has to certify it, then the customer has to update it.

      https://developer.apple.com/su...

      89% of iOS users are on iOS 10.

      https://developer.android.com/...

      Android users who are eligible for the patch make up 48% of the user base. What percentage of those will actually end up with it on their phones is much lower.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    18. Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So what is it you do do to your iPhones? That's not normal. Do you have excessively noisy power or something?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. This is not true here in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple gives us a two year warranty and if there is a design or manufacturing defect then it is around 6 years.

    1. Re:This is not true here in Europe by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

      You mean you paid for a 2 year warranty since Apple factored in the EU warranty requirement in their prices.

    2. Re:This is not true here in Europe by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You mean you paid for a 2 year warranty since Apple factored in the EU warranty requirement in their prices.

      No, you didn't, because they didn't.

      iPhone 7 base model in U.S.: $649
      iPhone 7 base model in France: $1022 (€ 909)

      To be fair, the EU has a 20% VAT on cellular phones, which brings the real number up to around $772 (I'm subtracting the 1% U.S./China import duty from that $649). And you can safely assume that they provide a 10–15% buffer to avoid having to constantly change the price. That takes it to $849–888. So by my math, you're paying the entire $125 cost of AppleCare for that additional year of warranty, and then some. Now maybe there are some additional duties I'm not aware of that cut into that difference, but the price of an iPhone in Europe has always been higher than in the U.S., and I can only assume that part of the difference covers the cost of the additional mandatory warranty.

      Either way, the problem is not really that Apple's warranty is too short, but rather that the cellular companies are allowed to charge for a product over a period that is longer than the warranty period. They should have two options: bill the phone over a year or build the cost of an extended warranty into the purchase price in exchange for the right to bill the phone over a longer period. Either way, IMO, it is the cell phone companies' responsibility to provide that warranty extension, not the manufacturer's responsibility.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:This is not true here in Europe by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, and actually false for some European countries (even inside the EU).

      First, they do not "give us", Europeans, that warranty - they abide to EU regulations which require 2 years of "purpose" (sans faults) under "normal use". They do exactly what they state they don't in the US - they automatically "contract" to it just by making business inside Europe. This happens EU-wide, EXCEPT in member states where the regulation is not ratified/enforced such as the UK.

      Oh and it's not Apple that is actually responsible at a first stage, it's the retailer who sells you the product: EU Consumer law puts the that weight on retailers for the 2 years of warranty, because many a times manufacturers aren't even based in the EU (e.g. goods are imported). This is not the case with Apple, so "Apple Europe" (a.k.a. "Apple Ireland" ^_*) actually provides the 2-year grace period to retailers which in turn provide it to end consumers. Consequentially, you find that many a times, companies that have representation in Europe prefer you go directly to them instead of retailers because it saves them time, money and brand since people love swift, direct customer support, especially of the pick-up and return variety taht avoids a second trip to the B&M.

      Design and Manufacturing defects OTTH are indeed the manufacturer's (Apple) responsibility for 6 years (I think, and likely only if it has representation inside the Union), but just like in the US actual enforcement of such responsibilities is uncommon, cumbersome, and usually requires litigation. Since in Europe litigation through class-action is very uncommon (in some EU members the concept of "class" doesn't even exist), you rarely see stuff such as mandatory mass-recalls of goods. When no conditions for a cheap, organized class to form, litigation becomes prohibitively costly and over-complex.

      In practice, this second-tier warranty is more enforceable on the US, and thus better. If I'm not mistaken, state-side this Design and Manufacturing Defects warranty can even go indefinitely - as long as you have a judge prove manufacturer liability in an item's characteristics. If so, the consumer will keep the right to request repair, refund, or even damages. This is logically sound because a company should be responsible for its faults no matter the time those faults are found - you can't, for instance, install pollutant engines in a VW diesel car in 2006 and expect that by 2016 you no longer have to answer for that illegality. It is also a common excuse to why most companies outcry that customers should not be able to service products they purchase and only allow repairs from authorized sources.

  10. European anomaly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple products are guaranteed to last 2 years. ...as required by law

  11. Re:Waste of money anyway by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

    "The only good phone is a land line and the phone should be made out of Bakelite!"

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  12. Curious by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My only question is, does Apple sell different devices in the US and Europe? Strangely, Apple customers in the EU enjoy a 2 years warranty.

    1. Re:Curious by xlsior · · Score: 2

      That's because the EU requires a 2 year warranty on all electronics. On the flip side, you may have noticed that the retail price of an iPhone is higher in the EU than it is in the US as well.

    2. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume they do some kind of quality control on their produced devices. At which point they know which batches are substandard, which they then ship to the US.

    3. Re:Curious by earthloop · · Score: 1

      Six years, thanks to European Consumer Law:

      https://www.apple.com/uk/legal...

      (Link is to the UK, but it's the same for all EU countries)

      Apple don't seem to put up much of a fight when making a claim either.

    4. Re:Curious by Misagon · · Score: 2

      The mandatory legal warranty in the EU covers only "pre-existing defects".
      If a component is rated from the beginning to expire less than then the full warranty period does not cover that component.

      So it may be possible for Apple to legal-wrangle themselves out of the full two-year period, but I think that reasonably, the only thing they could do it for would be battery life ... or the OLED screen of the iPhone X.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    5. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European automakers generally give a much longer warranty to the cars they sell in the US. These are the same cars they sell in Europe and are built on the same assembly line. To make matters worse, they even sell them for a lower price in the US (and make up for it with fewer option choices and higher sales volume).

    6. Re:Curious by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Apple might sell a different device based on the carrier but not necessarily a different device for a region. For example there is specific model for Japan as it uses certain FDD-LTE bands otherwise it's a difference between CMDA carriers (Verizon and Sprint in the US) and GSM (AT&T and T-Mobile in the US). In terms of warranties though, Apple has to maintain longer warranties in Europe. So a GSM iPhone under a 1 year warranty in the US is exactly the same GSM iPhone in Europe under a 2 year warranty.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the retail price is a little bit higher because localization and taxes.
      at least one french provider sells/rents phone without engaging you in a 2 years contract.

    8. Re:Curious by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Indeed. As is sales taxes and cost of living.

    9. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe they can wrangle themselves out of the battery-life. I think it only has a one year warranty.

      However they can only charge for the replacement of the battery, even though it may cost them more due to the battery being glued to the case. For example on the mac books that will include the case, keyboard and mousepad.

      In the case of the mac book, the same part (case/keyboard/mouse/batteries) have two different prices, one for when replacing the battery and a more expensive price for when replacing the keyboard. But the rest of that part is covered by the full two years warranty.

      Batteries are also extra special, if your device is bulging due to the battery, they will not open the device, you will get a new device immediately and you may need to pay for the battery if it is out of warranty.

  13. Apple is partially to blame by sarbonn · · Score: 2

    I've bought practically every version of the Iphone that has been released, so I'm obviously an Iphone fan, but I can see how people might get a bit upset over this. The part I believe Apple failed is in its agreement with cellular phone companies, in which it plays the "well, we didn't say it, so you have to blame them" game. Apple should have made it a part of their contract with cellular phone companies that they reveal IN THEIR contracts with customers that the Iphone is only guaranteed to work for a year, especially when these companies contract payment plans that last over a year.

    --
    Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
    1. Re:Apple is partially to blame by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apple should have made it a part of their contract with cellular phone companies that they reveal IN THEIR contracts with customers that the Iphone is only guaranteed to work for a year, especially when these companies contract payment plans that last over a year.

      First of all it's standard in the US that cell phones have a 1 year warranty. It is in their warranty and contracts with Apple. Second, when Apple sells their product to another company, why should they have to agree to terms between the customer and the cell company that they didn't make? By definition the cell service contract is a 3rd party contract. Cell companies can make warranties on top and extend Apple's warranties but not for Apple. Some business cell phone contracts do that.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  14. cmon slashdot by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    Lazy journalism, lazy putting it up onto Slashdot's news of the day...

  15. Re: Waste of money anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know that statement is actually incredibly offensive to those who actually have ADD/ADHD.

  16. Re:Waste of money anyway by green1 · · Score: 1

    You and your new fangled Bakelite!
    My phone is made out of wood! (Ok, so it has some bakelite parts, but you can't expect to use that for the whole phone!)

  17. Black and white by Jfetjunky · · Score: 2

    As someone who designs electronics, if you had to design it so it couldn't possibly fail in 2 years it would be so prohibitively expensive no one would buy it.

    Warranties are meant to catch the outliers, and they are a liability. Of course they are going to limit it. Yeah it sucks if it dies at one year and one day, but there a lot of other conditions that Apple did not force that make that suck more. Sincerely, an android user.

    1. Re:Black and white by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      You don't design it not to fail in two years. When you make a special version designed for two-year finance contracts, you design in a way that maximizes your profit while providing a two year warranty.

    2. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if you had to design it so it couldn't possibly fail in 2 years it would be so prohibitively expensive no one would buy it.

      A 2-year warranty doesn't mean that a product "couldn't possibly fail in 2 years", it just means that the manufacturer assumes the cost of repair or replacement if the product fails during the warranty period. This is much more achievable than you suggested.

    3. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 2 year warranty is standard in Europe. Yet, Apple is selling the same iPhones there with a 2 year warranty, as all the other smartphone makers. So I'm sure that many would buy phones designed for that, like it's the case in Europe.

    4. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who designs electronics, if you had to design it so it couldn't possibly fail in 2 years it would be so prohibitively expensive no one would buy it.

      Warranties are meant to catch the outliers, and they are a liability. Of course they are going to limit it. Yeah it sucks if it dies at one year and one day, but there a lot of other conditions that Apple did not force that make that suck more.

      Sincerely, an android user.

      you do not design it so it "could'nt possibly fail". if you actually did design electronics you would know that.

      And 2 years is the requirement in the EU. where the phone is also sold. so obviously possible.

      Warranties are for consumer protection. not for outliers and certainly not a liability. unless you make a product that isnt very good.

    5. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who designs electronics, if you had to design it so it couldn't possibly fail in 2 years it would be so prohibitively expensive no one would buy it. .

      Uh, have you checked the price of the iPhone X?

    6. Re:Black and white by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Companies employ what are called 'continuation engineers' or 'cost reduction engineers.' Sometimes these engineers don't even work for the product development department, they answer more to the purchasing and finance management.

      Their job is to reduce the cost of materials so as to increase the profit for selling the company's products. This often involves using the lowest possible quality of components and material that will last the company's product through the warranty period.

      These critters have to maintain a balance, of course, because there is also the marketing department involved, who want to maintain the good name of the company's brand.

      The bottom line is that the Maytag Repairman was a good marketing stunt, but a total disaster to the Maytag company, who wanted to sell a higher volume of white goods. So they (as Whirlpool now) employ big teams of 'continuation engineers.'

    7. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Warranties are meant to catch the outliers

      Indeed, but when the outliers become a significant portion, than it is a design defect, and the device does not meet its obligations of the implied warranty of merchantability.

    8. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who designs electronics, "can't possibly fail" isn't the goal. I mean my company is sitting around 1/2000 warranty rate with a 5 year warranty, which is among the best in the industry, for things that are abused way, way more than an iPhone (industrial engine interfaces)

      Sure they're liabilities. But the rate of failure should be pretty constant over such a large sample and can be compensated for.

      If they *can't* offer a 2 year warranty, they're garbage.

    9. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Continuation engineers are tasked with improving the already existing product moving forward after the initial product launch. There may be some cost reduction modifications, but their main purpose is to continuously improve products. Also - the Maytag campaign comment makes no sense. The company and marketing campaign were very successful. People wanted to buy a product that never needed to be serviced.

    10. Re:Black and white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still hug my Maytag! the repairman last fixed it over 20 yrs ago

  18. Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    My androids have all broken at about 3 years-- finally succumbing to drops and in one case a worn out usb port.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did your cheap androids come with a 3 year warranty. No they did not.

      I've seen many many android devices that didn't last even a year. So I suspect you're an outlier.

    2. Re:Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer by omnichad · · Score: 2

      and in one case a worn out usb port.

      And if you buy the right Android phone, you can then just plug a $10 Qi pad onto your charger and keep on using your phone.

      In a surprising twist, Apple actually used that standard for their own wireless charging.

    3. Re:Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. I've had Android phones for years now and they have all outlasted their 2-year contracts working just fine.

    4. Re:Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had two iPhones. Both lasted me three years. I bought a 4s, and kept that until I got a 6 (skipped 5 & 5s). My 6 is now three years old and works fine except for the battery starting to flake out last month. I waited to see the 8 and X yesterday and I wasn't impressed. This resulted in me buying a battery replacement kit for my 6 from Amazon for $25. That'll get me through to the next phone I want. Likely an Android next time. I like my phones to have headphone jacks.

    5. Re:Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yea, the headphone jack thing bothers me too.

      But battery powered tools bothered me and while I was helping gut flooded houses, I think I'm adjusting my attitude. I still don't like the missing headphone jack concept but perhaps it will make more sense 10 years from now

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'll look into that.

      My only requirements of a phone is that it plays boom beach & netflix and supports a reasonable priced hotspot/tether option (and of course- it shouldn't suck as a phone- lol).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  19. Re:Waste of money anyway by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    You and your new fangled Bakelite!
    My phone is made out of wood! (Ok, so it has some bakelite parts, but you can't expect to use that for the whole phone!)

    My phone predates trees. It's essentially two rocks joined together by strands of algae string.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  20. Buy a used replacement Re:I don't see it by klubar · · Score: 1

    Joe can also buy a used replacement (he is replacing a used phone with a used phone);

    Price of the used phone will only be slightly more the the "insurance" would have been with the original phone. After a couple of phones (or other electronics, Joe will come out ahead by not purchasing the insurance).

    As much as I'm not a fan of the carriers or manufacturers, I don't see the issue here. All the carriers and most manufacturers offer extended warranties (not a good deal, but protect you against surprise expenses).

    I guess they could add the warranty cost into the original price or manufacturers could compete on length of warranties. (Some auto manufacturers compete by offering longer warranties, and with SSD you can buy drives with 1, 3 or 5 year warranties at different prices.)

  21. One year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'll go over nicely for sales of the $1000 iPhone they just released. The last phone I had was a dumb phone from early 2000's and it still was working when I upgraded to an Android device. Hell I could pull it out of the box, put in a sim card and it'd still function. Enjoy the pricey toys from Apple.

    1. Re:One year? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      Hey, when the $1000 Applephone fails at 12-1/2 months, the eager Apple Customer will show up at the Apple Store to get another. They'll of course 'recycle' their worthless broken old Applephone, which Apple will of course put the $6 replacement part into to resell it as a reconditioned phone for $700. Eager customer goes home with their new phone that they owe another $1000 on.

      It's just the cost of being an Apple customer. Many are proud to pay the price.

    2. Re:One year? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Good imagination, but sticking closer to reality will make you more believable.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  22. by the same argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't Apple guarantee I won't lose/misplace it during the 2 year contract I entered into with AT&T? If I enter into a 10 year contract with AT&T, can I make Apple give me a 10 year warranty?

  23. How do you milk sheep by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just heard a joke recently:

    Q: How do you milk sheep?

    A: Release a new iPhone and charge £1000 for it.

    * - My apology to apple fans

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:How do you milk sheep by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      You should instead extend your apology to the sheep.

  24. UK law disagrees by jriding · · Score: 1
    --
    love the taste, hate the texture
  25. They're talking about the warranty terms by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Warranties are pretty pointless, in my opinion, because the terms are so short. If a device only lasts the term of the warranty, then it's disposable and not worth hundreds of dollars -- but almost all devices aren't as terrible as that. So I ignore warranties.

  26. Buy @ John Lewis in UK, free 2 year guarantee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on everything they do, including iphones... https://www.johnlewis.com/browse/electricals/mobile-phones-accessories/iphone/_/N-7bqw

    funny how a retailer can offer a better standard warranty than the manufacturer!

    for those not in the know, JL is a middle class store, so your usual peasants don't go there and don't know about this. This is why our local apple store is doubling in size, yet JL stays the same...

  27. good thing the EU has 2 year warranty by law by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    good thing the EU has 2 year warranty by law in usa you need to buy applecare

    1. Re:good thing the EU has 2 year warranty by law by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or not bother with any sort of additional warranty, which generally costs even less.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  28. Case is not about warranties by gmiller123456 · · Score: 1

    Typical PR to try to make the public think it's about something else. The specific case is about the touch screen having a very high failure rate, Apple knowing about it, and not telling customers about the problem.

  29. Deflection by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    It has been known in the iPhone repair community that these specific iPhone models have a factory problem known as "touch IC disease" that makes them prematurely fail way faster than other models. It's basically a soldering issue on a component that's in a sensitive place (that heats too much), which ends up losing contact and stop working.

    Apple is just trying to deflect the problem here by saying that the company cannot be expected to keep warranties over their pre-stipulated time, without recognizing the issue in itself.
    https://ifixit.org/blog/8309/i...

    But yes, Apple is a corporation like any other, and people should just realize that. They have used the exact same strategy for past problems, at least initially, some very well known like antennagate, bendgate, Apple Maps, Purple Haze, poor iCloud security practices, and others.

    And yeah, that whole thing about a robot disassembling and iPhone because Apple is an environment friendly company that cares about eWaste? That's just bullshit and marketing propaganda. Having a robot arm that quickly disassembles iPhones means nothing when your company is lobbying against stuff like Right to Repair Bill. And of course it doesn't help when the company fails to recognize problems like the one on this case, telling costumers that they have no responsibility for a design failure that will ultimately land a whole bunch of those iPhone 6 and 6 Plus on the garbage, or on repair places they don't support nor care for.

    1. Re:Deflection by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Antennagate was overblown, and Apple gave everyone affected a free iPhone case.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  30. 1 year warrantee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a company gives you a 1 year warranty, that means they are backing the device for 1 year

    It does NOT mean the device will fail at 1 year + 1 day

    And even IF the devices were guaranteed to fail at 1 year + 1 day, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, from the perspective of the warranty, since it only guaranteed backing from the company for 1 year.

    We've all got iPhones and other devices that have lasted well beyond the time frames the companies producing them are willing to support them. That's why there's after sale and 2nd hand markets for parts and support.

    Very misleading article title

  31. Completely misleading by burtosis · · Score: 1

    The suit is regarding a specific defect present only in 6 and 6s models where the touch screen controller chips become desoldered. It affects the logic board, which is why it's not repairable and it happens from repeated slight flexing of the phone, such as being in a tight pants pocket. Apple offers a refurbished phone for $150 to replace the damaged one in this case, they are not legally required to do this. Overall iPhones don't have a hardware reliability issue, they took a bit of a hit in the last year but are comprable to android phones. Software wise they see frequent updates and have good security compared to android phones.

    1. Re:Completely misleading by ledow · · Score: 1

      In Europe, it's at least 2 years, by law, guaranteed. Apple got sued for selling "an extra year" after the first year when actually bog-standard consumer law says you get two on anything. If you get two on washing machines and PCs, pianos and watches, diving equipment or generators, what makes them think you shouldn't get 2 on a phone, especially one sold on a multi-year contract (are you suggesting if it stops working through no fault of my own I need to carry on paying for it still, and buy another phone? Really?)

      They don't have to offer a refurbished phone, agreed. They don't have to because it's a cop-out. They are in court arguing that their STATUTORY CONSUMER RIGHT isn't to replace the entire phone for free. They may well be legally required to replace every one ever proven faulty (not broken by the user) within several years. By comparison a $150 offer on a refurb is just a kick in the teeth.

      But I don't see them arguing in a European court that it shouldn't be 2 years. Do they make different phones for different continents? I doubt it somehow. And, to be honest, in a waterproof, sealed device that's subject to daily life, if it can't survive two years they really need to go back to their design books and start again (hint: design means more than "looks").

      In 15 years, I've never damaged a smartphone, and they've taken tumbles down marble staircases and fallen out of lofts and all sorts. Not one of them was Apple, though. In work, everyone with Apple smashes their screen in the first year no matter what case it's kept in, and it usually takes a chunk of circuitry with it unless it's just a crack.

      And reliability? Hehehe. That's funny. Ever worked anywhere where they use them en-masse? iPhone screens particularly are the shittiest things I've ever seen on a modern device in terms of surviving just ordinary usage. Everything from internal boards fucking the screen display up (lines down the screen, etc.), touchscreens dying, to just plain shattering of the glass at the slightest hint of a knock. Not shared with their equivalent devices in anywhere near the same prevalence, whether tablet or phone.

    2. Re:Completely misleading by burtosis · · Score: 1

      On the moon there is no warranty. This is about an American lawsuit over a particular design flaw. Yes, in Europe it is two years. Yes I have repaired probably 30 or so iPhones and no, they are no worse from a hardware reliability side than a typical android phone. Lines in the screen are most often caused by water damage or someone half assed the surface mount connectors on the flex ribbon for the screen. It's the same on android phones actually. There is nothing wrong with the internals of Apple products except you overpay for old technology.

    3. Re:Completely misleading by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The plaintiffs could indeed show a design flaw and Apple could be legally required to do something about it. The court has said that Apple is not required to honor a warranty it never issued.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Completely misleading by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let's see. They don't have to make a more durable phone for Europe, they just charge more.

      Also, your claims of damage are completely contrary to my experience and every statistic I've seen on the subject. Either your cow-orkers are doing unspeakable things with their phones, or you're making this up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Gov protects rights by mx+b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because in general it is not the government's business to interfere with private agreements. If you and I agree to something, we should not need the government's permission.

    Sir, you have this backwards. Government regulations are not granting permission, they are there to set a process that ensures everyone's rights are protected during the negotiation process, and to enforce penalties on those that break their contracts.

    Without regulations, why should a billionaire CEO of a multi-national company give a shit what *you*, sabri, think about their policies and contracts? They can tell you anything you want to hear and then say "nevermind" after they've gotten your money. And what are you going to do as an individual?

    Our government is of the people, for the people, by the people, because together we are strong and can protect ourselves and our rights. Individually we are weak, particularly in the face of a strong business adversary.

    In this case, it does not [severely disadvantages them]. The system works as designed and the courts are now going to determine whether or not Apple's point of view (that an iPhone cannot be guaranteed to work after 1 year) is reasonable or not. This is based on general principles of reasonableness, not on a codified mandate for consumer warranties.

    Our court system is effectively broken for most Americans. Have you been to court? I have. It's a lot of legal fees, meeting with lawyers, filing paperwork, waiting months for a court case, only to have the decision appealed by a defendant with way more money and time than you. It is extremely delayed justice, if you get it at all. The working and middle classes are typically hugely disadvantaged in court. We could fix it by requiring speedy trials, hiring more judges and public defenders, and other tweaks, but that would require a more expensive court system and likely higher taxes, which many completely flip their shit when they hear the word "taxes" so we've not been able to have constructive discussion on the topic.

    We don't need the government to create laws that "protect" us, because those laws will have side effects. Don't believe me? Let me give you one example. It's somewhat off topic and may start a flame war, but that is not my intention. In my home country, the unions have been successful in creating very strong labor protection laws. In short, once you hire someone on a permanent contract, it becomes very difficult to fire them. That resulted in employers being careful in giving permanent contracts, and opting for temporary contracts which kept getting extended. Then the government created new laws to prevent that from happening, by mandating a permanent contract after three extensions. And guess what? Do you think more people got permanent contracts? No. "Disposable" workers that are easily replaced where replaced after three contracts. In California, where I live, there is the principle of at-will employment. This means (explaining for non-US person), that I can get hired and fired at any time. And you know what: that flexibility causes businesses to hire without giving it a second thought. No bullshit with temporary contracts needed, because everything is flexible. That is the net result of government interference, no matter how well these laws are meant.

    It would be nice if we directed our ire at sociopathic executives of multi-national corporations that have no allegience to country or the people, rather than indirectly defending them when we attack government regulations and actions. No level of government did any of this to you; there is no law that says "no one should ever hire sabri for a permanent position". Corporations decided to do this because they are sociopaths, obsessed with forever increasing their profits regardless the consequences to people, the country, the economy, or the planet. Please note, I am in no way saying they shouldn't be profitable or well compensated for their work. Bei

    1. Re:Gov protects rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr: the problems you see are the result of sociopathic businesses abusing their powers and our rapidly-changing economy to attack your rights, because exploiting others is how they make more profit; government and unions work to protect your rights and have actually won you the workplace protections that you take for granted today. We can and should demand businesses work for America and its citizens, not just themselves.

      The term you're looking for is "Vulture Capitalism," and it's a problem I've seen most clearly articulated by moderate-conservatives. There isn't much talking to the folks who fantasize about "going Galt" without stopping to think about who is going to do the dirty jobs of their libertarian paradise.

    2. Re:Gov protects rights by sabri · · Score: 1

      Sir, you have this backwards. Government regulations are not granting permission, they are there to set a process that ensures everyone's rights are protected during the negotiation process, and to enforce penalties on those that break their contracts.

      Yes, but as soon as the government starts dictating the contents of those contracts, we divert from "protecting rights" to allowing only permissible contracts. And that's exactly the case with regulations requiring warranties. That's a direct interference of my right to enter into a contract.

      Without regulations, why should a billionaire CEO of a multi-national company give a shit what *you*, sabri, think about their policies and contracts? They can tell you anything you want to hear and then say "nevermind" after they've gotten your money. And what are you going to do as an individual?

      Small claims court.

      Our court system is effectively broken for most Americans. Have you been to court? I have. It's a lot of legal fees, meeting with lawyers, filing paperwork, waiting months for a court case, only to have the decision appealed by a defendant with way more money and time than you. It is extremely delayed justice, if you get it at all. The working and middle classes are typically hugely disadvantaged in court. We could fix it by requiring speedy trials, hiring more judges and public defenders, and other tweaks, but that would require a more expensive court system and likely higher taxes, which many completely flip their shit when they hear the word "taxes" so we've not been able to have constructive discussion on the topic.

      Same answer: small claims court. No need for expensive lawyers. Everyone has access to small claims court, the fees are acceptable and you don't need representation.

      "At-will" or "right to work" laws are *not* in your favor, why do you think business likes it so much? Can you survive waiting potentially months for the next job to come up? This is why we have safety nets, but those nets have been slowly dismantled and defunded too.

      This is where the core of your argument becomes visible. You want to divert responsibility for your income to private businesses instead of yourself. If a company no longer needs a worker, whether that's due to downsizing, slow business or automation, why would the company be forced to keep you on payroll? It is your own responsibility to update skills and stay attractive to get hired. It is your own responsibility to save up for the months that you need to find another job. And if you are unable to support yourself, why should a private company be responsible for that? When you accepted employment, you entered a contract to perform a certain labor in exchange for a certain reward. That is not "a certain reward + however long it takes to find another job". Yes, bigger companies might be able to have a small percentage of low performing/no longer needed personnel on payroll, but your average mom&pop shop doesn't. So why would the government need to create laws to do so?

      I do agree with one thing: for these cases we do need a social safety net, but that should be funded by everyone and there I do see a role for government. But not to interfere in my private contracts.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    3. Re:Gov protects rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your nuts. The solution to crappy businesses is to not do business with them. I don't use Comcast, Facebook, Uber, Netflix, many of Amazon's products/services (I do some business with Amazon still unfortunately, but it's the price I'm willing to pay), eBay (I do business with them actually despite not being a fan, again not really in my favour, but it's up to me to work toward moving toward and promoting something else like OpenBizzar), Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Apple, Sony, HP (except there printers because they've done the right thing there where everybody else has done the wrong thing), Adobe, amongst MANY other companies explicitly because I don't like how these companies do business. I don't like PayPal and the major credit card companies/banks... I regularly promote Bitcoin and heavily utilize it. Both receipt of Bitcoin for sales in my business and to purchase products and services from others-- both personal and business. From car repairs (my mechanic takes it) to Newegg and other suppliers for busies purchases. My entire 3 week vacation was paid for in Bitcoin this summer- I wouldn’t do business with any hotel I couldn't pay for the room in Bitcoin. Which wasn't that hard actually to pull off as most of the hotels and motels on Expedia can be paid for in Bitcoin.

    4. Re:Gov protects rights by killfixx · · Score: 1

      Well said. One missed item, that hard-fought for 40 hour work week is now considered lazy.

      I work in IT, not programming --just the back-end stuff, and I have been shamed (not ashamed) for considering anything less than 60+ hours per week --not including weekends-- to be idiotic. They each looked at me and said, "You're in IT". Like that was supposed to say it all.

      I'm not working anything more than I absolutely have to to keep my job, and keep my family fed. If I were hourly, it might be a different story.

      --
      "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    5. Re:Gov protects rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The workforce that kept their jobs often worked for extremely low pay, for 12+ hours per day and on weekends, and often in dangerous conditions without any protective gear (such as coal mining).

      Fun fact: the "set screw" is a screw that doesn't have a screw head, so it allows the screw to tighten into a part so that it doesn't stick above a surface. A common place for it is in the hub of a sprocket or pulley, so that there is a backup to a machine key to help transfer torque.

      Why did I bring this up? It's because when it was first invented, it wasn't called a "set screw" as it's commonly called today. Instead, it was marketed to factories as a "safety screw." This was because even the bare minimum of worker safety, such as a cover for spinning parts like those found near the gears on bicycle pedals or the pulleys for a belt on an engine, was deemed to expensive by factory owners. A normal screw was used on these sprockets and pulleys, so worker injuries could happen when the normal screw head caught on a worker's clothing even when the worker was far away from the chain or belt.

      The fact that a company made a fortune on selling "safety screws" showed that the employers of the Gilded Age had no incentive to improve without government pressure. These days, OSHA checks for these types of things and fines companies for these types of violations (source: work at motor factory. We frequently using spinning equipment to make products that also spin)

      Ironic captcha: unwinds

    6. Re:Gov protects rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I encourage you to look up the American Gilded Age. This was the period after the beginning of the industrial revolution, when technology and industry quickly changed and economic power was concentrated into the hands of a few top executives and businesses. Effectively, a couple people owned entire sectors of the American economy, and used this power to put competitors out of business and become monopolies. Once they became monopolies, there was no reason to hire workers to produce more or to keep prices lower, because people had no choices anymore, and so monopolies quickly raised costs astronomically as they laid off huge percentages of their workforce.

      That's the standard socialist mythology. Economic historians have studied the facts, and the reality is rather different.

      For example, at the time of the famous Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil had over 100 competitors (including giants like Gulf Oil). Not a monopoly at all - and they had never raised prices "astronomically" but rather had made it possible for the ordinary consumers to purchase oil at an ever lower price for decades - something impossible to sustain if the goal was just to price out competitors. But the facts were inconvenient for various special interest groups (including some members of the press), so they just pretended otherwise. It's pretty clear the Supreme Court decision against Rockefeller was bought and paid for, like so much else in US law.

      Decades of economic research has shown that predatory pricing is a myth - there has never been a clear cut case of a monopoly created by predatory pricing. A claim of predatory pricing - and the associated legal action - is simply another tool for unscrupulous businesses to use against their more competent competitors, aided and abetted by a largely unethical legal profession and by corrupt politicians. Laws and regulations created in the name of combating predation are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer.

      Predatory abuse of patent and copyright, on the other hand, is not a myth - it is a serious and increasing problem, and an inevitable consequence of monopoly granted by government. Here, too, we see the negative effects on society of ethics problems in law - but THAT topic has been covered at length in prior Slashdot discussions, so I'll let you exercise your search engine muscles.

      You are, however, quite correct, that safety in the workplace has improved substantially in some ways. But there are many problems here even today. The many wildfires create particulate matter that can stay in the air for months after a fire ends. People can put air cleaners in their homes that work quite well - but the workplace can be a significant source of lung damage in these situations (especially for those predisposed to it, such as former or current asthmatics). Similarly, hearing loss in the workplace is still a big problem - the standards are completely out of date, divorced from the real world, and they also do not take into account the health impact of stress associated with noise. The medical implications of stress in general are a major workplace safety issue, a problem compounded by all the unethical stuff going on related to health care. Carpal tunnel is another big health problem, as is the lack of exercise associated with sitting at a desk - and the resulting obesity (not to mention a host of other problems). Taking all of this into account, it doesn't seem that the government is doing a good job of actually protecting workers.

  33. Re:Buy a used replacement Re:I don't see it by networkBoy · · Score: 2

    I get that this is a non-issue to many, and I actually agree with Apple insofar as they sold the device to the carrier etc. with an explicit one year warranty.I just also see how people feel there is a jarring disconnect between contract time and warranty time, and wanted to feed some thoughts to that end.

    I like the idea of vendors competing based on warranty (and yes you'd start seeing the same item at different price points based on the warranty).

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  34. Re:Waste of money anyway by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    "The only good phone is a land line and the phone should be made out of Bakelite!"

    Even landline phones have been made of ABS, not Bakelite, since the 1950s, at least.

  35. Looking to governent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of looking to you government god to fix your every desire, just didn't buy the IPhone. Go with another company.

  36. My iPhone 6 Plus have been replaced 8 times becaus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each time the replacement would fail within as few days, a few weeeks or a couple of months. Apple just keep giving me their refurbished junk, no matter what I say.

    I'm pretty sure the 6 Plus have very high failure rate cause by soft aluminum case, weak touch ic.

    Apple just would not own up to their failure. They just cover up their bad design by insisting on giving bad phone as replace to bad phone.

    Very very disappointing.

  37. Only reason I had considered an iphone this time.. by cmorgan503 · · Score: 1

    was for the built in support for the next generation Cochlear Nucleus 7. It's disappointing that there isn't any love or support for Androids, however, I get that there are just too many variables with all the different models and system versions that comes with Androids. However, I'm not willing to pay so much money for a phone that Apple claims is only guaranteed for an year, unless I get the extended warranty. Needing to spend $10k (estimated) just to move up to a Nucleus 7 setup and then 600+ for an iPhone, which may only work for an year? I'm not made of money. My insurance company may help with the CI upgrade, but I'm on the hook for the rest.

  38. Apple kills products on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple kills off older Apple products forcing the user to purchase the newest devices. Each IOS upgrade wo;; eventually render the device usless

    my son and an Iphone and when he went to the next IOS it bricked his device toold it to apple they said you need to get a new device/

  39. It's all about the battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was easily removable/replaceable by the user, the phone would last 10 years. But we know why they're not "easily removable/replaceable by the user", don't we?

    We are dealing with good old planned obsolescence. It's not really newsworthy to tell people they are suckers for buying them, is it? But the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

  40. Implied warranty? by wintered · · Score: 1

    There is such a thing as an implied warranty in the USA. Basically a contract between the buyer and the seller (not the manufacturer). This can be up to four years.

    So year, Apple shouldn't be involved in providing a limited warranty past 1 year, unless of course they are the retailer in which case the implied warranty comes into play.

    https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

  41. Wrong contract unconscionable by mysidia · · Score: 1

    It's not Apple's 1-Year guarantee that's unconscionable;
    Its the CARRIERS providing an early termination fee for 2 years on hardware not even warranted to last 2 years.

  42. Consumer rights by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile I've had a European Apple drone try to convince me that my device wasn't covered, because the sales-slip said "Apple Ireland"

    If they persist, threaten them to contact your local consumer rights association.

    Or directly do so, specially if you're in country with strong such groups (Germany and Switzerland come as an example).

    Apple has no legal standing on these claims.
    Consumer right groups have lawyers who can sue them for such violations of law.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  43. Unlike the entirety of Europe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where Apple is required BY LAW to warrant their products for a minimum of two years.

    How did Apple respond? They changed AppleCare to extend only one year to your warranty (and assumed you will spend your life with said phone in Europe).

    I purchased my iPhone when I lived in Italy (and therefore was promised two years of warranty support), and when I returned a year later to the US and my phone failed, they changed their tune to "well it sucks to be you because here in 'Murrica we only have to support it for one year."

    Either way it's lame, moving forward it's actually unconscionable when they plan to charge a grand for a freaking PHONE. It should be reasonable to think that is something costs a thousand dollars, you should expect to use it for at a minimum of two years...

  44. socialism by Tom · · Score: 2

    Come to socialist Europe, here the minimum warrenty is 2 years. I actually got a brand new iPhone SE recently, two months short of the 2 year period, when my old one failed.

    But hey, we're just communists over here, with healthcare and proper laws. Don't get any ideas. ;-)

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 years is only for individuals, companies only get 1 year!

    2. Re:socialism by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You also paid more for that phone than you would have in the US. The additional year's warranty does not come free.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:socialism by Tom · · Score: 1

      Still by far a net positive for me, so cry as much as you want. :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  45. Proof the iPhone is shit by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I warrantied my LED panels for five fucking years. LEDs are KNOWN to degrade with use. Computer electronics should not degrade within a year. If you can't offer a better warranty on a non-degrading product than I can on a degrading product, you're simply utter shit.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  46. Re: Waste of money anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that people with ADD/AHD won't have managed to read this far down the comments anyway...

  47. LOL! by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    $1,000 for a phone! ROTFLMFAO!

  48. That argument didn't fly in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australian consumer law is generally pretty strong. Apple tried to pull the "one year warranty" argument, and they were slapped down - hard - by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

    The result can be seen for yourself: in Australia, you have a two year statutory warranty, given that that's the standard contract for a plan plus phone.

    More details here and here.

  49. Warranty duration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both Apple and the carriers who sell them and even third parties who's only involvement is a warranty, offer extended warranties. To argue the basic 1 year warranty against manufacturing defects is insufficient is irrational. I believe they are only required to offer something like 30-60 days to prevent DOA situations.

  50. Re:Gov protects rights and it`s true by medavd · · Score: 1

    As an European I`m so sorry for Apple to have to comply with the socialist UK, https://www.apple.com/uk/legal... or communist Australia https://www.apple.com/au/legal..., EU minimal is 2 years, truly pissed with `government to create laws that "protect" us.` these socialist horrible terms, let`s keep and defend Corporation profits awesome, because they only wan`t the best for the suckers... consumers!!!

    It`s so interesting to read comment`s of people defending the liberty for corporations, Apple doesn't care about the consumers, and they have to give different warranties, depending on the legislation of the country, and still don`t lose money.

    i`m really curious Americans what append to LINCOLN’S “We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”, why are you, the american people, so scared off the "government of the people" making laws that protect you and your rights from cooperation's?

  51. Apple products by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    The new I phone is around 1000 bucks. I would wish people would wake up to realize that after deregulating phone companies you could buy a telephone for your house at walmart for 9.95. I know people are going to argue that house phone cannot do all the things that a portable phone can do. But I see so many people addicted to these phones like crack addicts. It's really sad. And with the huge market for these devices the price of these devices should be going down instead of up. The quality for all these devices is plus or minus good. Some of you are going to buy the new Apple phones and find out 2 days after warranty it dies and /or you drop it and find out Apple will sell you a new one to replace it, but will price repairing the one you have is going to be so expensive that buying a replacement phone will look good to you. I'm sure they are also making it harder for third party repair people to fix Apple products. Wisdom dictates to buy the phone for your needs, not to see if you can put a dinosaur in a picture or movie you took. Also if it can be repaired. I know will not get through to some people but a bad deal on a phone or contract to buy a phone is still a bad deal.

  52. Buy AppleCare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A *three* year warranty is available from Apple (AppleCare). You just have to buy it. And they go above and beyond in taking care of their customers with the warranty. And you can sell your used phone after two years with the AppleCare plan for a higher price because the plan transfers.

  53. 1 Year only by Monster_user · · Score: 1

    Probably not the wisest thing to admit, but I opt out of paying for a multi-year warranty if I thing the manufacturer produces a product of sufficient quality that the 1 year warranty is immaterial. Apple has been good with product repairs and such. Maybe not the best, but good no the less. An automobile I might be less inclined to opt out of an extended warranty on. Extremely high price of ownership, lots of moving parts, plenty of opportunities for failure, and I'm not exactly a mechanic either.

  54. One by one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they all fall down.

  55. Except in Maine by pgn674 · · Score: 1

    Maine's implied warranty law says four years. I don't know whether anyone has successfully used that against Apple, though.

  56. Apple worst polices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me tell you guys I have purchased an iPhone 7 Red colour, within 1 month the colour start peeling off and when I reported to apple they said cosmetic is not covered under warranty. This is a manufacturing fault and within one month it's happening but never replace the phone and I try every channel.

  57. EU minimum warranty is 2y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In EU the reseller must provide a 2 years warranty after purchase of a mobile phone (but that covers defects which means that you must prove there are defects...).

  58. No, Apple is guaranteed to only last one month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they keep this up. It's like they are *trying* to kill their own company.

  59. The iPhone Is Guaranteed To Last Only One Year, Ap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    their product is not worth $1000 that's for sure!

  60. Re: data by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Yes, but data is also not information.

  61. Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. The iPhone's default warranty only lasts 1 year. The extended warranty is longer. The actual phone can continue to function for years longer.

    Intentional slander or just too stupid to compose a headline? Which is it?