Yet another car analogy. And, a lot of anger too. I won't bother wasting more than a second of my time explaining how you're not comprehending the issue at hand.
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.
Apple Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Failing 27" iMac Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yet another car analogy. And, a lot of anger too. I won't bother wasting more than a second of my time explaining how you're not comprehending the issue at hand.
The difference is how notebooks are used vs. desktops.
Desktops are generally in stable operating conditions, usually in a room with relatively few fluctuations in temperature, humidity, shock, etc.
Notebooks/portables are generally used in much more variable conditions: used on a train (think of the vibration & shock, no matter how "minor" vs. just sitting on a desk), in a coffee shop, possibly outdoors (like on a patio), in different temperatures, humidities, plugged/unplugged daily, getting jostled/transported in cars, buses, etc. ...And daily for many users. All this without being "damaged."
That's the difference.
----------
[/COLOR]
Just because you don't like car analogies doesn't mean it doesn't apply. And sorry, I was just answering your question (why doesn't Apple... 3-year warranty like Dell).
And I'm not angry at all. I was just asking a question about why you're not on a Honda forum. I gave you the answer too. Not looking for a fight.
Last edited:
I love my 27 inch iMac...but
There is this problem they have. They get these weird dark spots after a while. I can't explain it but I have seen it on 3 different 27 inch models now from 3 different times. I wonder if the newer thin models do it. They look like dust inside has been burned to the back of the screen.
There is this problem they have. They get these weird dark spots after a while. I can't explain it but I have seen it on 3 different 27 inch models now from 3 different times. I wonder if the newer thin models do it. They look like dust inside has been burned to the back of the screen.
Ok, read slowly...
These iMacs have a higher than expected failure rate. Read the forums. There have been all kinds of problems with these 27" screens.. pink ones, streaked ones, dead ones, flickering ones..
The lawsuit is not frivolous based on that. (The fact that our class-action lawsuit system is really flawed is a separate issue).
And those issues were know about 1 month after the computers were released. Apple hasn't addressed the issue directly. If I were buying an iMac wouldn't one maybe check out some reviews? If you didn't check any reviews then your a silly consumer making a spur of moment, "I need this" decision. If you did, and bought that iMac knowing there were issues and furthermore DIDN'T buy AppleCare then that's being negligent. Make Apple own their mistake if that's the case. Every single time something happened to the screen take it in and make them pay. So what if they got through 10k in their theoretical repairs it's at least going to make them consider taking it the issue head on.
Lastly:
AppleCare = $249-369
AppleCare = 2 extra years support
AppleCare = $~120-180 a year
Cheapest Mac = ~$1099 with tax
Cheapest Mac repair (hard drive replacement) = ~$350
Numbers are friendly. Protect your investment for a faction of the cost... Doesn't seem like a tough decision to me.
So lets think about this in an industries with some pretty absurd warranties. You've got your Volvo with it's 10 year 100k mile power train warranty. The dealer says do you want to buy an extended warranty because yours is going to run out and the cost of any repair is far greater than the cost of the entire package. You decline. At 120k your head gasket blows and your out 2k... TOUGH *****
People always say warranties are for suckers, that's an opinion but they are out there. If you don't but into it that's the risk YOUR taking.
Lastly:
AppleCare = $249-369
AppleCare = 2 extra years support
AppleCare = $~120-180 a year
Cheapest Mac = ~$1099 with tax
Cheapest Mac repair (hard drive replacement) = ~$350
Numbers are friendly. Protect your investment for a faction of the cost... Doesn't seem like a tough decision to me.
So lets think about this in an industries with some pretty absurd warranties. You've got your Volvo with it's 10 year 100k mile power train warranty. The dealer says do you want to buy an extended warranty because yours is going to run out and the cost of any repair is far greater than the cost of the entire package. You decline. At 120k your head gasket blows and your out 2k... TOUGH *****
People always say warranties are for suckers, that's an opinion but they are out there. If you don't but into it that's the risk YOUR taking.
Indeed.
The amazing number of corporate boot-lickers and lawsuit haters. And they all fail to comprehend the basic and key point that these 27" iMacs have had a ton of display problems, most of which Apple has never owned up to.
If these were cars, there would be a federally-forced recall on them.
I suppose it might go to their political views, where personal responsibility is paramount, and corporations can get away with murder.
----------
You <---> Point
AGAIN. The issue here is not whether the warranty should have been purchased (it should have, but that's another whole issue of why it's needed)..
The issue is the very high failure rate of these displays.
Or are you saying you are fine with Apple shipping systems that fail after one year?
So you think quality is overpriced (i love my imac but the specs and price is a joke) items that brakes after 18 month ? 12 month warranty is a joke and so is AppleCare.
Thank god I live in Denmark with 2 years of warranty and if products brake because of poor quality build you can complain for a loooong time
I think some people need to work on their reading comprehension. The point I was making is that the plaintiff was suing because he had a perception that Apple products would last much longer than their warrantee. And that he purchased it expecting that there would be no problems after the warrantee period and is now suing them to fix it because their reputation made him expect that it wouldn't fail even out of warrantee.
I think quality is awesome and wish it were present in more products. I'm just saying that you can't sue because something has a reputation that exceeds its legal obligation.
class action. Get enough people at smaller amount and it adds up fast to 5 mil.
Yes, but see my previous post. My issue is that this guy is suing because he thought the computer would have no problems even after the warrantee expired because Apple has good reputation. So, if Apple had a bad reputation he would't be suing. I was pointing out the irony of his claim, but I think it was lost on everyone.
You are confusing business grade with consumer grade products and services.
Hate to break this to you but Apple does not make any business grade products any longer and they never offered business grade support.
Now Apple support and products are great consumer grade and I would argue among the best but end of they day they are consumer grade which pales compared to business grade.
Business grade also cost a hell of a lot more than consumer grade.
As for the differences in apple care cost is laptops move around and their is a much greater chance of them getting damage and the parts are under a lot more stress so normal wear and tear will cause them to fail.
Normal wear and tear on a laptop is a lot harder than normal wear and tear on a desktop. A desktop can easily go its entire life with out a single scratch and with a little cleaning it can look like new. Laptop. It is just not going to happen. They are going to be banged up scratch and show their age in the wear and tear.
You seem to have have a lot of ideologue-like generalized statements and non-evidence based, inappropriate conclusions. I won't address them all.
A regulator's job is to enforce a regulation, not to identify inefficiencies. For instance, anti-monopoly regulators look for companies displaying monopolistic tendencies. This constant surveillance is known and understood by corporations/the people behind the corporations. As rational actors, these people will therefore avoid an investigation (fines) by anti-monopoly regulators. This fear of investigation/fines represents a constant, anti-monopoly pressure on the market, greatly limiting the development of monopolies. Since monopolies create highly inefficient markets, these regulations therefore create more efficient markets.
Its interesting that you support merchantability as the sole type of regulation. If a regulation-less market is more efficient, why the need for any regulations? Certainly the market could right the problems of a seller who sells flawed products, right?
True.
But the class-action lawsuit is a mechanism to get corporations to own up to problems that are deemed dangerous, persistent, or of specific design.
In this case, the failure rate can be shown to be much higher that normal breakage (we aren't talking about moving part wear and tear, we are talking about design flaws).
So yes, Apple is not legally bound for a single computer that breaks out of warranty, but they may be held liable (or be compelled to be liable due to bad press) in a case where the failure rate drastically exceeds industry averages.
^This. And plantiff's (or putative plaintiffs') argument here is that Apple knew or should have known about the design defect in the display and yet it chose to continue to advertise the imac as if said defect did not exist, thereby rendering those advertising claims of superiority and longevity false and misleading to consumers. That's the argument.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be constantly insulting but why don't you read this slowly:
Where do you get this "higher than expected failure rate" data? Do you have conclusive proof that there is a higher than expected rate of failure on these machines vs regular machines? If so whats the number? How did you reach such a conclusion?
If you're basing it off of forums your data is flawed from the start since people don't visit forums to say their stuff is working, they visit when there are problems.
I'm basing in on my own observations on the forums here, and the complaints about these systems over the years.
However, you are also preemptively judging the merits of the suit based on your own biased viewpoint.
It's for the judge to decide if there is enough merit for this to move forward... but you want to throw it out before it gets there.
To everyone who's complaining about out-of-warranty issues — TOUGH LUCK! Next time buy an Apple Protection Plan! For an item as expensive as an iMac, the APP is a bargain; WORTH IT'S WEIGHT IN GOLD. Apple has the best support I've ever experienced, and I've been using their products for over 20 years. They will spend AS MUCH TIME AS NECESSARY to resolve your issue and the APP bumps your warranty up to 3 Years. They have thee best technicians in the industry and they couldn't be friendlier or more patient.
Like buying insurance from a restaurant in case they give you food poisoning. Why should I pay to insure a company against the poor quality of its product? If Apple can't build a computer that can work perfectly for at least three years, they're in the wrong business.
Agree that conclusions based on forum data need to be viewed skeptically, but certainly they can at least be directional. Further, and on the same note, you also cannot point to data that proves there isn't a problem. What we do know is that some plaintiff's firm thinks the facts here have crossed that magic threshold to make this worth the risk of taking the case (remember the business decision a plaintiffs firm must make). Admittedly, that threshold can be pretty low, but it makes me less likely to just dismiss out of hand as whiners people who are complaining about their screens. (I don't know why people are so quick to dismiss them in the first instance, but that's another matter.)
OK, let’s see ...
The “basic” warranty, the agreement for no cost repair (within proper use, etc.) is for an iMac is 12 months. The product may last far longer than the warranty duration and it’s in the manufactures best interest that it at least lasts the minimum period.
I’d also suggest it’s also in the manufacturers best interest that the product doesn’t experience [a costly] catastrophic failure within a period that an optional warranty is offered. i.e., Apple doesn’t want to sell a $189 iMac AppleCare and constantly replace a $500 display component (and this wouldn’t be conducive to repeat buyers, word-of-mouth, industry reliability reports). So it’s not like Apple wants to build in an 18 month life cycle.
AppleCare gives you “absolute” coverage for 36 months. Should you have to assume a failure between 12 and 36 months of ownership? Of course not. For me, where my machine is business critical, it’s more of a peace-of-mind cost. Would it have solved the plaintiff’s issue had he purchased it. Sure, but he didn’t buy it.
So the simple version - which has caused all the debate in this thread: Rasmussen didn’t purchase AC, his machine failed at 18 months, which is 6 months outside of the warranty period.
The big consideration [for this case] is the “reasonable” failure rate. Someone might look at the cost of AC and be willing to - for lack of better terms - gamble that they’re not going to experience a failure. In fact, quite a few folks might research the product and see low failure numbers, high customer satisfaction (that generally involves service needs) and think something like AppleCare doesn’t make any sense. Also keep in mind, part of of AC is support, so some people buy to have 3 years of no charge help, not just to cover repairs.
So what’s reasonable? That’s the _real_ nuts and bolts of this lawsuit. If Rasmussen’s purchase was motivated by a reasonable expectation of n years of use without issue, based on the sales, marketing, existing service rate data, etc., and this specific model (when combined with specific branded component) is a radical enough departure, he could (and I believe should) expect some kind of compensation.
We’ve got a brand new [as of about a year ago] Sony 55” LED in the bedroom, because the previous set had a known component issue, experience failure way outside of the industry norms (including Sony themselves), and the old TV was 3+ *years* out of warranty (I discovered TVs have a pretty long life expectation). FWIW, I didn’t even pursue this, I was going to buy a new one, found a group on FB, made one call, had a service guy come by, 2 days I get an offer of one of several models, I choose, 2 weeks later we’ve got a brand new 55” with all the bells and whistles
The “basic” warranty, the agreement for no cost repair (within proper use, etc.) is for an iMac is 12 months. The product may last far longer than the warranty duration and it’s in the manufactures best interest that it at least lasts the minimum period.
I’d also suggest it’s also in the manufacturers best interest that the product doesn’t experience [a costly] catastrophic failure within a period that an optional warranty is offered. i.e., Apple doesn’t want to sell a $189 iMac AppleCare and constantly replace a $500 display component (and this wouldn’t be conducive to repeat buyers, word-of-mouth, industry reliability reports). So it’s not like Apple wants to build in an 18 month life cycle.
AppleCare gives you “absolute” coverage for 36 months. Should you have to assume a failure between 12 and 36 months of ownership? Of course not. For me, where my machine is business critical, it’s more of a peace-of-mind cost. Would it have solved the plaintiff’s issue had he purchased it. Sure, but he didn’t buy it.
So the simple version - which has caused all the debate in this thread: Rasmussen didn’t purchase AC, his machine failed at 18 months, which is 6 months outside of the warranty period.
The big consideration [for this case] is the “reasonable” failure rate. Someone might look at the cost of AC and be willing to - for lack of better terms - gamble that they’re not going to experience a failure. In fact, quite a few folks might research the product and see low failure numbers, high customer satisfaction (that generally involves service needs) and think something like AppleCare doesn’t make any sense. Also keep in mind, part of of AC is support, so some people buy to have 3 years of no charge help, not just to cover repairs.
So what’s reasonable? That’s the _real_ nuts and bolts of this lawsuit. If Rasmussen’s purchase was motivated by a reasonable expectation of n years of use without issue, based on the sales, marketing, existing service rate data, etc., and this specific model (when combined with specific branded component) is a radical enough departure, he could (and I believe should) expect some kind of compensation.
We’ve got a brand new [as of about a year ago] Sony 55” LED in the bedroom, because the previous set had a known component issue, experience failure way outside of the industry norms (including Sony themselves), and the old TV was 3+ *years* out of warranty (I discovered TVs have a pretty long life expectation). FWIW, I didn’t even pursue this, I was going to buy a new one, found a group on FB, made one call, had a service guy come by, 2 days I get an offer of one of several models, I choose, 2 weeks later we’ve got a brand new 55” with all the bells and whistles
Not so sure a guy in Idaho can apply California consume protection laws as he likely bought from someone in Idaho and those has no buyer/seller contact with anyone in Cali. And those laws typically require such an agreement
Also if the unit failed 18 months out then for 18 months it was great and thus not likely a manufacturing defect, also generally a requirement.
And then there is the buyers responsibility to know their warranty and to avail themselves of opportunities for extension, like say Apple Care, which is less than $200 for an iMac for two more years of coverage. Either he didn't bother to do his research or refused and now it's biting him in the ass.
Because of these questions I won't be shocked if this gets tossed out, particularly as a class action suit.
----------
But even then those laws aren't as awesome as some folks think. They apply to the seller not the manufacturer and for defects at time of purchase. Plus in many countries if it's been over six months it's on the buyer to prove it was a defect present at purchase. This guy likely ever had a issue with his iMac in 18 months so Apple could easily say it wasn't a defect present from the start (high usage can burn out a display and using it as a home media center might apply) thus legally could tell him to go sit on an egg.
And if he bought it at Smith's computers and not an Apple store he can't use said laws with Apple anyway
----------
That's basically what he's looking for. He wants everyone that had to pay for a screen replacement to get their money back.
----------
I wouldn't presume that. With those forums every legit report of an issue gets about 20 pages of ire. Eventually they tend to boil down to perhaps a couple of dozen actual reported units. On a really really long one it might go as high as hundred.
And half those were fixed without a hassle by Apple but the owners still want to kvetch.
Also if the unit failed 18 months out then for 18 months it was great and thus not likely a manufacturing defect, also generally a requirement.
And then there is the buyers responsibility to know their warranty and to avail themselves of opportunities for extension, like say Apple Care, which is less than $200 for an iMac for two more years of coverage. Either he didn't bother to do his research or refused and now it's biting him in the ass.
Because of these questions I won't be shocked if this gets tossed out, particularly as a class action suit.
----------
But even then those laws aren't as awesome as some folks think. They apply to the seller not the manufacturer and for defects at time of purchase. Plus in many countries if it's been over six months it's on the buyer to prove it was a defect present at purchase. This guy likely ever had a issue with his iMac in 18 months so Apple could easily say it wasn't a defect present from the start (high usage can burn out a display and using it as a home media center might apply) thus legally could tell him to go sit on an egg.
And if he bought it at Smith's computers and not an Apple store he can't use said laws with Apple anyway
----------
That's basically what he's looking for. He wants everyone that had to pay for a screen replacement to get their money back.
----------
I wouldn't presume that. With those forums every legit report of an issue gets about 20 pages of ire. Eventually they tend to boil down to perhaps a couple of dozen actual reported units. On a really really long one it might go as high as hundred.
And half those were fixed without a hassle by Apple but the owners still want to kvetch.
I tend to think that most of these lawsuits are frivolous, but...
After seeing so many of these 27" iMacs firsthand with display problems, so much so that I literally now expect to see problems on 27" displays from this era, I think they've likely got a pretty good case. These issues have been too common and too widespread.
After seeing so many of these 27" iMacs firsthand with display problems, so much so that I literally now expect to see problems on 27" displays from this era, I think they've likely got a pretty good case. These issues have been too common and too widespread.
Depending in where you are, yes they do have to. And they do it everywhere else cause it's just easier to have one system in place
Additional 2 years, not three.
It is my peronal opinion that by paying a premium for a higher quality product (at least we are told) we should be covered for at least 24 months, not 12. This would do few things:
1. it would force Apple to improve quality control and component quality;
2. it would send a message that they stand by their words.
Why is it when your HDD fails after 14 months you are out of luck when any other HDD you nay have bought is covered for 36 months and some even longer.
Why a dirty cheap Benq display has 36 months warranty and Apple alway shas issues with iMac displays and you are out of luck after 12 months.
Certain component quality is insufficient. Either improve component quality or increase warranty period.
I don't see a reason why i should pay even more for AppleCare for somthing that should work for at least 3 years without any issues anyway and knowing how much more all things Aple cost in Europe i'm definitely not out of line asking for this.
Thumbs up for the guy in question. I think we need such lawsuits every months maybe then they will revisit the logic behind their actions.
You guys are such idiots. Learn to read, the article clearly states its a "Class-Action" Lawsuit, meaning its on behalf of everyone who purchased the iMac with that specific problem. He doesn't get $5 million regardless on if he wins. Its divided up by all those who suffered from the issue. If its settled for less, then that amount will be divided up.
Keep your ignorant comments to yourselves. I never comment, but created an account just for this. Stop judging the guy based on your own ignorance.
Keep your ignorant comments to yourselves. I never comment, but created an account just for this. Stop judging the guy based on your own ignorance.
No you don't. You have a law that says you have six years (five in Scotland as I recall) to file a lawsuit over over a perceived violation of the Sale of Goods act. That act is NOT a warranty. A warranty protects you from any defect or failure that occurs at any point in time over the the warranty period. And warranties almost always come from and apply to the manufacturer.
The Sale of Goods act applies to the merchant and deals with a consumer having bought something that was ****** at the time of purchase. If it fails within six months and you make a claim to the merchant they must legally act under the assumption it was bad from the start. But after six months they can deny your claim and force you to prove it was bad from the start. And if you pull that off, they can repair, replace or even refund less a reasonable amount of depreciation. But note that the law doesn't define 'reasonable amount of time'. So a merchant like Apple could say that 3 years is a reasonable time and if you disagree you have to go to court to get them to tell Apple otherwise (assuming you can prove there was an issue at time of purchase from Apple)
And the EU laws are essentially the same, aside of three countries that don't have the six month rule.
Amusing all the folks that gripe about Apple not knowing consumer law when they don't seem to know it either. That must be why they gripe about Apple not explaining it to them when there is no legal requirement for Apple to do so
Poor choice of examples. The whole antennagate was not a design issue at all. It's as an natural issue that was shown to effect dozens of non Apple phones and was only an issue for some .01% of iPhone owners almost all of whom readily admitted that they live in areas with crap cell phone service in general. Even the Consumer Reports review noted that this issue was only an issue if your service coverage was crap.
And who is to say that this guy wasn't overusing his iMac compared to standard usage models and burned out the properly designed and installed display himself. He does say he was using it as a home media center. That means potentially having it in for a good 2 hours or more at a time, likely with full brightness etc. And if he was using it in his music classes that could mean even more use every day. Could go as high as 8 hours in a near solid stretch. Few of us use our computers that much every day so we wouldn't burn out the display so fast. But he might. Which means it's not a defect at all. Whether anyone in those 320 pages had one or not.
----------
Says the doctor who has never treated nor met the man. And yet magically knows exactly what is wrong with him and the best treatment.