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.'"
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.
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 this. This headline is a lie. People will stop reading this website.
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.
Here's a novel solution: Don't get an iPhone?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.