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.
A manufacturing defect does not have to be evident within an arbitrary timeframe.
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.
applecare. my god that name.
anyway, you're saying it's unreasonable for him to expect a $2,000 computer to work for over a year if he doesn't shell out an extra 10% of the purchase price as an insurance policy?
you feel it's reasonable for apple, a self proclaimed premium computer manufacturer charging premium prices for their products, to shrug their shoulders at a customer complaining over a defective screen barely a year and a half after purchase?
This. Although it would be good for Apple to offer an extended warranty for screen failures like some companies do, Microsoft for red ring of death XBoxes for example, I don't believe they're required to do anything at all if the iMac doesn't have Applecare.It was outside the warranty period. It is at their discretion to fix it or not, they have no obligation to do so once the warranty is up.
Why is there a need to be hostile towards Europeans and their consumer laws in this thread, this is about an US citizen suing a US company. We manage alright here without other countries interfering, not even the most powerful man in the world (Putin, not Obama) can change that.
A manufacturing defect does not have to be evident within an arbitrary timeframe.
This. Although it would be good for Apple to offer an extended warranty for screen failures like some companies do, Microsoft for red ring of death XBoxes for example, I don't believe they're required to do anything at all if the iMac doesn't have Applecare.
Here's hoping the guy wins this Class-Action lawsuit.
Apple needs to start holding a higher standard for the lifespan of their products.
There is no excuse that a Mac from 1986 still works, but an iMac from 2008 doesn't?? That's not only unacceptable, but its poor business to develop products that are made to last for only a few years and NOT notify the customer that their product is intended to be used for "x amount of years"
I'm looking forward to being a part of this class action lawsuit.
Now did I get lucky, do I have good karma, was it that I had researched the issue online and knew about the class action lawsuit, I wonder.
I know anything substantive I buy in the future will have the longest Apple Care contract they sell. I only need one brush with trouble to learn. I treat this Mac like all my others, it gets turned on first thing in the morning and shutdown when I go to bed at night. But I'm no power user, just mail, web browsing and occasional app use.
I'd have thought the fact that Apple repaired your computer for free was the resounding success, rather than support for paying more for AppleCare... but that's just me it seems.
I don't shut down any of my Macs except for software updates/when I go on holidays and am away from the house for an extended period...
A manufacturing defect does not have to be evident within an arbitrary timeframe.
5 Million $ for what? This is ridiculous.
Why not just take his Screen back and give back his money?
My expectation is that a new iMac should not fail within 3 years. Apple is selling me a quality product right ?
I agree with you that AppleCare for iMac can be picked up relatively cheap , though it's disappointing that the machines fail. I for one had AppleCare on my iMac, it did fail, and I had most of it replaced due to excellent customer service. Though when I bought the iMac it developed issues within the first 12 months, I finally took it I when it got a couple more issues. To be frank it's running well right now having nearly everything replaced, though the original one was not a quality product meant to last
5 Million dollars ?
The laws likely had nothing to do with you getting it replaced. They did it to get rid of you. Sometimes it's quicker and easier to just say yes than deal with someone who is going to repeatedly be an issue. That you quoted the Sales Goods Act blah blah was probably beside the point. They could have equally have said no and made you file a law suit and won it. But the costs of dealing with that were probably higher than just giving you a new computer and getting you to leave them alone.