Australian Consumer Law is vague about how long they are covered for. And Apple take advantage of that. Sydney Apple Store genius told me my 2012 MacBook's battery (~70% after 300 cycles) and iPhone 5s' battery (68% after 680 cycles) wasn't covered because 1 year is a reasonable time period. 1 year.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AppleCare+ for iPhone, iPad, iPod and Apple Watch Now Covers Batteries That Retain Less Than 80% of Original Capacity
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Australian Consumer Law is vague about how long they are covered for. And Apple take advantage of that. Sydney Apple Store genius told me my 2012 MacBook's battery (~70% after 300 cycles) and iPhone 5s' battery (68% after 680 cycles) wasn't covered because 1 year is a reasonable time period. 1 year.
when I worked the Genius Bar it was always replaced if under 80% of charge capacity and below the expected number of battery cycles within warranty/AppleCare time. I don't know where this 50% number came from- seems like false information. I never worked with the watch though so maybe that battery was treated differently. I have trouble believing it though, I think this article fabricates some information- it is more likely that the AppleCare+ agreement wording changed slightly.
1 year is a standard manufacturers warranty. Next time buy AppleCare or be prepared to pay for the failed battery out of warranty if it fails. Sorry dude but you have zero argument here.
My AppleCare ran out on my iPhone 5 last month. As a last-ditch effort, I thought I'd have a local Genius give it a look over , especially the battery, which I felt was tanking a little too fast. It came up at about 51% on their meter, one tick above what was the replacement threshold.
Thankfully, the Genius not only decided to replace the battery, but because of a "crack" he found, he replaced the entire phone. Sure it's an iPhone 5, but it's essentially a new phone 2 years after I last paid for it.
Perhaps there have been rumblings for a while that this change would happen and he was trying to fit me into the window.
My wife simply chalked it up as a "bro moment."
Thankfully, the Genius not only decided to replace the battery, but because of a "crack" he found, he replaced the entire phone. Sure it's an iPhone 5, but it's essentially a new phone 2 years after I last paid for it.
Perhaps there have been rumblings for a while that this change would happen and he was trying to fit me into the window.
My wife simply chalked it up as a "bro moment."
I bet the vast majority of people that actually bought the 17K apple watch were born rich. Artist and famous people get their apple watch for free. Anyways, if one can spend 17K on tech that will be outdated in a year, they can easily pay the insurance as well.
Consumer Law dictates hardware coverage for at least 26 months, from Date of Purchase. You were outside this timeframe hence the result. BTW your battery will need to be replaced when it hits 1500 charge cycles. My 2012 iPod has a yellowing screen, but left it too long to get fixed.
That means you probably did 500 full cycles 0-100-0 already. Hell of a lot of use. If you didn't, then you may have a case.
The watches should all be like 5 years, the Edition should be for life.
Things like Laptops and Tablets should be 3 years.
Phones should be 2 years.
All this should be STANDARD, by law.
Things like Laptops and Tablets should be 3 years.
Phones should be 2 years.
All this should be STANDARD, by law.
The cost of warranty coverage is built into the price. Increase the duration of coverage, and the price of the affected products have to go up. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Sure, it'd be nice to have longer standard coverage. Due to competitive price pressure, the cost increase would likely be of a lesser magnitude than the add-on plans (which are reputed to be highly profitable). It would also raise the bar for overall quality (an ounce of prevention). But there would be a variety of counter-arguments. The third-party sellers of extended warranties would lose business to no fault of their own. The added cost would price some consumers out of the market (hurting the product's overall sales prospects)...
But in the end, it's not likely to solve the battery "problem" for most people. Batteries degrade over time, determined by physics and chemistry (expert witnesses will make that clear to legislators). If a battery fails to maintain the specified lifespan (say, falling below 80% of capacity prior to reaching 1000 charge/discharge cycles) - great - more people will get warranty-covered repairs than under the current warranty. It will not help those who simply use up their batteries.
Further, you've proposed different warranty durations for different product categories. The law doesn't do that today, it's not likely to do that tomorrow. There's no legal justification for mandating different life spans for different product categories if all are built from similar materials, in similar ways. Should a CPU or display in a watch last longer than a CPU or display in a phone? Why should a battery that has the same lifespan (1000 charge/discharge cycles) be warranted for 5 years in a watch, but 2 years in a phone?
The only reason AppleCare offers a longer coverage term for computers than it does for other products is that computers tend to be replaced on a longer cycle, so consumers are willing to pay the cost for longer coverage. Who would buy 3-year coverage for a phone if they expect to replace it at the end of a 2 year carrier contract?