All I can tell you is that in my case, persistence helps. I had a nightmare with my 3GS - it was replaced by apple 4 times in a little over 2 years, the 5th time I needed a replacement they offered me an iPhone 4!
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.
European Union Requesting Examinations of Apple's Warranty Advertising Practices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All I can tell you is that in my case, persistence helps. I had a nightmare with my 3GS - it was replaced by apple 4 times in a little over 2 years, the 5th time I needed a replacement they offered me an iPhone 4!
Indeed thats the whole issue, apple (and its retailers) are selling something that is pointless, and even in some cases they mistate the warrenty users have
http://www.apple.com/benl/legal/statutory-warranty/
Its simple, apple is simply trying to sell more apple care while downplaying the rights EU customers have. I dont mind the EU stepping in as big companies decieve their own customers .
We just like looking after our people. Pity the US Government doesn't feel the need to do the same with their own people. Think Hurricane Katrina.
Because very few people in the EU would bother to buy AppleCare PP at the current asking price if they knew that it's just a 1-year extension of the warranty. It costs more than similar offerings from competitors and offers less. Example: In my EU country, Apple wants $349 for APP on an MBA. I.e. they want $349 for a 1-year extension of the bare-bones warranty plus phone support.
For $150, Dell gives you 3 years of next business day on-site repairs, meaning that if your crappy plastic laptop breaks down, you call a number and the next day a guy shows up at your door with tools and parts. Try that with Apple... call them and go "Hi, I have a Mac Mini with AppleCare plan, can you send someone to my home to fix it tomorrow?" and they'll laugh for about a week at the audacity of the puny ant on the phone.
Anyway, I looked at the wording in the Apple Store and technically they're not lying. They simply say that APP is a 3-year deal, but they make no mention of the 2 year warranty that's already included. Deceptive maybe, but not fraudulent.
Last edited:
Good luck trying to pin the whole culture-of-lawsuits thing on Europe...! Compared to the US we have a fraction of your number of lawsuits per capita. If you ask the average European what they believe stands out about Americans, the lawsuit thing is probably in the top 5 along with religious kookery and gas guzzling cars the size of tanks. Some probably even think that "I'll sue you!" is interchangeable with "Good morning!" in the US.
You still don't get it, Macass, do you? Europe just has higher standards of consumer protection in this respect and Apple has to follow them. We can argue whether it should be zero (so you have the most choice, right?), 1 year, 2 or even 3 years. However, the point to bear in mind is that a 2 year warranty period is not particularly onerous. And of all people, fat-margin Apple should not be the one seen as trying to skirt around the requirements and engage in deceptive practices.
By the way, I should add that I like companies that stand by their products with good warranties. Indeed, as it has been pointed out, this can be a competitive advantage.
Pedro
And boy, don't we love our nanny.
Btw, just nitpicking here, you probably mean EU, which does not include even nearly the whole Europe.
I guess most warranty cases are within the first month, and very few thereafter. Extending the warranty to 2 years wouldn't be big cost increase.
Oh noes! A government that actually prioritizes protecting the consumers, i.e. the people who elected them. We can't have THAT!
Companies can either comply or die. What're they gonna do, pull out of the EU? A market consisting of 731 million people in the rich, western and civilized part of the world? If they become protective, competitors will move in and immediately snatch up their market share, and surprise -- the EU also has strict laws for (and monitoring of) competition and puts a blowtorch to the rear of anyone who gains a dominant market share. If you think that all this regulation somehow makes companies charge more and become reluctant to invest, I would encourage you to look at something like this graphic: Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World.
http://dailyinfographic.com/internet-speeds-around-the-world-infographic
Notice how US prices are through the roof yet the average speed is laughable compared to countries like Sweden with all its market regulations? Or did you notice how 3G rollout in the US was several years behind Europe where such services also are much cheaper? Or how in Europe, the iPhone was quickly spread across several competing telecom companies, while in the US you were stuck with dinosaur AT&T (who could charge ridiculous prices thanks to their 'iPhone monopoly) for aeons?
Think of the EU approach as 'checks and balances' between governments and markets. The consumers get the best, and cheap, and fast, and the businesses certainly don't weep all the way to the bank. Without regulations, all you get is elimination of competition, and then complacency sets in.
A friend of mine once said "the weird thing about Americans is that if something isn't working, they're not humble enough to try something else, they just double the amount of whatever isn't working, hoping that'll fix it." If you think that even more tax breaks to corporations and the rich, and even less regulation, is going to get the economy back in shape -- consider Sweden, that pesky Nanny State, that socialism/capitalism hybrid. Sweden was first in the world to recover from the Great Depression, at a time when the US was still in shambles and struggling with 20%+ unemployment. Sweden was also the country that best survived the minor depression of '08/'09, showing a surplus when both the US and many EU countries were in the toilet. And Sweden pulled it off with politics that makes Obama look like a Tea Party representative.
You are so correct. For instance, I have no idea what an eduction is. Some form of lymphatic system test, perhaps?
Although, I do know what a joke is.
Last edited:
We need the EU to help clarify this as possibly even case law if Apple fight it. Simply in current circumstances when you try to fight an organisation such as the company that sell you a product, as the consumer you lose out if you don't play by the organisations rules.
A recent example is an Xbox I purchased couldn't be used for 18 months after purchase due to unforseen circumstances. This was then faulty, long story short EU law covers me but as the company knew about it all they just stretched out the process, told me to take them to court costing time, money and effort and also stated quite rightly that I have to prove the fault by paying for an independent test on the equipment to prove the fault was there when I purchased the product, paying for such a test is ok if you win and claim it back but only if you can find someone willing to do the test and write you a report that is fit for court.
If the EU stamps down on this and clearly states what you can do and a set process and consumers felt more confident you would find when companies know they are liable they would replace or fix products much easier!
A recent example is an Xbox I purchased couldn't be used for 18 months after purchase due to unforseen circumstances. This was then faulty, long story short EU law covers me but as the company knew about it all they just stretched out the process, told me to take them to court costing time, money and effort and also stated quite rightly that I have to prove the fault by paying for an independent test on the equipment to prove the fault was there when I purchased the product, paying for such a test is ok if you win and claim it back but only if you can find someone willing to do the test and write you a report that is fit for court.
If the EU stamps down on this and clearly states what you can do and a set process and consumers felt more confident you would find when companies know they are liable they would replace or fix products much easier!
Apple makes it publicly known that you get 90 days of phone support. You knew this before you bought the product. Any complaints after your 90 days is just whining.
People quite rightfully view this 90 day period as stingy. People are entitled to expect more for the premium prices they pay.
I find this blind defence of Apple bizarre. We all love their products but it doesn't mean we all think everything they do is perfect.
What a silly thing to say!
The fact is that you can purchase an Apple product and still not be satisfied with the telephone support even if you were aware of the 90 days rule before you bought the product. For me this rule is not a big issue, perhaps for others it is.
The key point here is that when you buy an Apple product it does does not mean you are necessarily endorsing all of its practices or indeed all aspects of the product. Fairly obvious stuff.
Perhaps misguided individuals like you believe otherwise. It does explain some of the blind adulation you get on this site for Apple (which combined with the usual crass American jingoism by some posters has shaped this thread).
Personally, I am quite likely to buy another Apple product despite believing its warranty practices in Europe are disgusting. But I will certainly factor some of Apple's practices into my future decision-making on purchases.
Pedro
Logic: If it doesn't work then there are three possible causes: 1. It wasn't built to last long enough. 2. You broke it. 3. Someone else broke it. As far as the seller is concerned, (2) and (3) are identical, they don't have to fix it. But if there no traces of external damage, and causes (2) and (3) can be excluded, then (1) must be the cause. That's what you can tell them, and that you consider the absence of external damage as proof.
If they disagree, you tell them: Ok, I'll find someone who is qualified to examine that kind of equipment, I will pay them to examine the phone and give me a written statement about whether the button was faulty or not, and if it was faulty then you are going to repair it and pay for the person who examined the phone.
Alternative: You go to the small claims court, take close-up photos of the phone and tell the court that there are no traces of external damage so it must have been caused by a fault that was there when the phone was purchased. The seller would have to appear in court, which is costly. Even if they do, there's always a chance you win.
But can I just add: We are discussing whether you are entitled to a repair and if you are, how you make sure you get it. What the article is about is something entirely different: Whether Apple gives you enough information when they are selling AppleCare.
----------
You are very unclear here in what you are saying. Apple as the manufacturer gives one year warranty. The _seller_ of the phone is responsible that the phone works for a reasonable amount of time. So only the shop where you bought the phone has to do _anything_ for you. On the other hand, Apple as the manufacturer will fix problems within one year (not because they have to by law, but because that's what they offered when you bought a phone).
So if you bought an iPhone at store A and it breaks after one week and you try to return it at store B, they have no obligation to do anything.
It's like whining after your 100,000 mile warranty is up. Misguided? I read all the documentation. I understand it. I understand the rules and policy that is in place. It is you that is misguided. Here, i'll guide you in the right direction
- http://www.apple.com/support/products/
Edit: I never said buying the product signifies endorsement. Just understand the warranty and phone support before buying it. You do that when buying a car don't you? Why not a smart phone that costs nearly a thousand dollars? Seems like its common sense. I guess we can't all be careless with our money.
I really don't think you understood my post (or are pretending not to). I suggest you read it again. This time more carefully. It is more than just about whether somebody understands before buying, it is about whether it is fair or appropriate.
Pedro
Ok for people struggling to understand why people are saying its unfair, a warranty offer from a company is all well and good but it cannot contradict a law, for example they may believe that by apple stating you have to buy a second years cover they are trying to contradict a law by not advertising you are essentially paying for ease of replacement.
I read it. I understand it. I never said buying an Apple product meant you endorsed all of its practices or aspects of their products. Don't put words in my mouth. My statement only covered the Applecare protection plan and the 90 days of phone support. What you did, was put words in my mouth and insulted me saying basically, " You think when buying an Apple product you support and agree with the company in every conceivable way " - When in fact, I never said anything of the sort. You misquoted and then insulted me. I think it is *you* who ought to be reading more carefully. Read the OP, it should clear everything up for you.
My statement also applies to the Applecare protection plan and the 90 days support. I specifically refer to it as well - go back and read it, please. So, yes, you really don't seem to be doing too well on the comprehension front.
To help you, I will repeat it again succinctly -> I think someone has the right to be disappointed with some of Apple's polices with regards to the warranties and 90 days support. Even if they were aware of them before they bought it. Simple.
Pedro
PS I did not say that you actually said that buying an Apple meant you endorsed all of its products. Read that particular sentence again and try to understand what it is being said. It is a general statement which I use in the thread of my arguement. If this is too confusing for you, then I ask you to focus then on the previous paragraph in this post.
Last edited: