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.'"

Comments

Intentionally poor headline

[chispito]

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

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[micahraleigh]

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

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[geekmux]

"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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[Raistlin77]

"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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[war4peace]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[redmid17]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[chispito]

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.

Re: Intentionally poor headline

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[JohnFen]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[TheFakeTimCook]

"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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[JohnFen]

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.

Re: Intentionally poor headline

[TheFakeTimCook]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[Jaime2]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[geekmux]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[redmid17]

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

Re: Intentionally poor headline

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:Intentionally poor headline

[sjames]

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

Re: Intentionally poor headline

[jedidiah]

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.

I don't see it

[makerfixer]

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.

Re:I don't see it

[AmiMoJo]

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?

Re:I don't see it

[networkBoy]

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.

Re:I don't see it

[Daemonik]

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.

Re: I don't see it

[pjt33]

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.

Re:I don't see it

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re: I don't see it

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I don't see it

[Christian Smith]

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.

Re:I don't see it

[edtice1559]

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.

Re:I don't see it

[sabri]

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.

Re:I don't see it

[richy freeway]

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.

Re: I don't see it

[yodleboy]

"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.

Re: I don't see it

[bws111]

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.

Author not Reader

[Luthair]

Jason Koebler is the author of the article, which is true for all his submissions..... which makes him a spammer.

Re:Author not Reader

[sl3xd]

I'd +5 informative you if I could.

Why is /. letting authors post their own clickbait?

I don't see the problem here...

[QuietLagoon]

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.

Re:I don't see the problem here...

[geekmux]

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.

Interesting arguement

[thegarbz]

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?

Re:Interesting arguement

[CastrTroy]

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.

Re:Interesting arguement

[thegarbz]

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.

Owning things is the new taboo

[Arzaboa]

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

Re: Owning things is the new taboo

[that this is not und]

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.

Buy AppleCare+ for it

[phalse phace]

and it's guaranteed to last 2 years (because that's how long it will be warrantied for).

Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it

[known_coward_69]

or don't abuse it and it will last longer

Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it

[edtice1559]

What one thing can iPhone do better than a mid-range Android device?

Re:Buy AppleCare+ for it

[edtice1559]

Oh and how does a BMW "beat" a Toyota going fro one stop sign to the next at 25mph?

Re:Waste of money anyway

[Curunir_wolf]

"The only good phone is a land line and the phone should be made out of Bakelite!"

Curious

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

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.

Re:Curious

[xlsior]

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.

Re:Curious

[Misagon]

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.

Apple is partially to blame

[sarbonn]

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.

Black and white

[Jfetjunky]

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.

Re:Black and white

[edtice1559]

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.

Re:Black and white

[that this is not und]

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.'

How do you milk sheep

[Oswald McWeany]

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

Re:How do you milk sheep

[that this is not und]

You should instead extend your apology to the sheep.

Re:Jeez, even my cheapy androids last longer

[omnichad]

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.

Re:One year?

[that this is not und]

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.

Gov protects rights

[mx b]

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

Re:Buy a used replacement Re:I don't see it

[networkBoy]

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).

socialism

[Tom]

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. ;-)