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.'"
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.'"
"Guaranteed to last only" =/= "Only guaranteed to last"
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Jason Koebler is the author of the article, which is true for all his submissions..... which makes him a spammer.
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?
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
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.