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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm waiting for the phone to turn out to be racist and sexist because of the all male design teams employed and the lack of testing outside of a small group of "in the know" employees at Apple.
That depends on the underlying technology. Apple claims that it isn't a camera based system but a 3D sensor system. As such it is less affected by skin color.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
As mentioned by other posters, a Kinect does not take a photo either. It uses sensors. Also the claim is not that it does not store it. They claim is that it does not store the data as a photo at the filesystem level. It stores it as data inside the Secure Enclave. So if you happen to write some sort of Trojan on the iPhone, you could not get to the facial recognition data by looking for a.PNG or.JPG or.SVG file in the filesystem. Even if you were able to find a file that might be the facial data and decrypt it (AES 256 bit encryption), the practical problem is that you'd have to interpret the format. With photos format specifications, converting the data to a usable form is easy as those specifications are known. I don't know how to interpret the data format that Apple would use.
You're assuming Face ID relies on photos (like most other smartphone facial recognition systems), but so far as we know, it doesn't. Rather, it works a lot more like the Kinect.
I would say it probably works like an upgraded Kinect as Apple bought out PrimeSense in 2013.
Trusted Face or Face Unlock has been around on Android but the implementation from Apple is slightly different. Androids use the camera for this while Apple's implementation uses sensors.
Rey beat a badly injured Ren who is bleeding profusely. She beat a Kylo Ren who doesn't seem like he's been trained very well in sword fighting. I guess his crudely made lightsaber is symbolic of his training. He appears to be more of a hack-and-slash fighter than a fencer and in the ending, Snook says it is time to complete his training. Contrast that to the original trilogy: Vader is a master swordsman who was playing with Luke in Empire. However both Vader and Ren are not out to kill; their motive is to capture which limits what they can do.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm waiting for the phone to turn out to be racist and sexist because of the all male design teams employed and the lack of testing outside of a small group of "in the know" employees at Apple.
That depends on the underlying technology. Apple claims that it isn't a camera based system but a 3D sensor system. As such it is less affected by skin color.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
As mentioned by other posters, a Kinect does not take a photo either. It uses sensors. Also the claim is not that it does not store it. They claim is that it does not store the data as a photo at the filesystem level. It stores it as data inside the Secure Enclave. So if you happen to write some sort of Trojan on the iPhone, you could not get to the facial recognition data by looking for a .PNG or .JPG or .SVG file in the filesystem. Even if you were able to find a file that might be the facial data and decrypt it (AES 256 bit encryption), the practical problem is that you'd have to interpret the format. With photos format specifications, converting the data to a usable form is easy as those specifications are known. I don't know how to interpret the data format that Apple would use.
I'm wondering what the margins on change would be. For example an changes due to injuries, minor/major facial surgery, swelling from allergies, etc.
You're assuming Face ID relies on photos (like most other smartphone facial recognition systems), but so far as we know, it doesn't. Rather, it works a lot more like the Kinect.
I would say it probably works like an upgraded Kinect as Apple bought out PrimeSense in 2013.
Trusted Face or Face Unlock has been around on Android but the implementation from Apple is slightly different. Androids use the camera for this while Apple's implementation uses sensors.
By forced to use it, only if you buy an iPhone X and turn it on. Otherwise entering in a code word or number is the default.
Yes a claim made by the manufacturer of the product. You can believe it or not.
Rey beat a badly injured Ren who is bleeding profusely. She beat a Kylo Ren who doesn't seem like he's been trained very well in sword fighting. I guess his crudely made lightsaber is symbolic of his training. He appears to be more of a hack-and-slash fighter than a fencer and in the ending, Snook says it is time to complete his training. Contrast that to the original trilogy: Vader is a master swordsman who was playing with Luke in Empire. However both Vader and Ren are not out to kill; their motive is to capture which limits what they can do.