Apple disagrees with new Italian warranty ruling, files appeal - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

And I think you shouldn't speak unless you do a little research to find out what the law really provides. Because (and I know this from living and working in several countries in the EU and buying several computers etc) the law is that the seller must cover all repair or replacement of any item up to 2 years from date of purchase for DEFECTS PRESENT AT DELIVERY. The first 3-6 months (depending on the country) is no questions asked. After that, in all countries but the Czech Republic and Romania, the customer has to prove the defect was present at delivery. 

 

At no time has anyone shown that they were denied coverage of such a defeat for an item bought from Apple after getting refutable proof that the defect was there when they bought it. So how can you say that Apple isn't providing the required warranty. Or are you saying it because this agency is of the mind that Apple should offer their voluntary and way above what is required warranty for free to be nice to folks even though there is no law requiring it

Swing and a miss... As I posted earlier, my MBP laptop died at 13 months and Apple fixed it. Not sure where you worked but it doesn't sound like the EU country where I live....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

Yeah, but the whole idea of a free two year warranty on a modern electronic device is a bit ridiculous.  

 

No other place has this and Italy is just a part of Europe. If it was up to me I would simply leave Italy.  It's not like you can't drive to a neighbouring country in five minutes to get an Apple device. Sometimes the proper reaction to a law is not to give in to it but to decide to go elsewhere where the laws are more reasonable.  

 

I know lots of folks who refuse to travel to the USA anymore for this same reason (although the laws in question are much more serious than just whether you get a refund on your purchases or not).  

Ever hear of Nikon? Go have a look at the Nikon D4 price and see how your myopic theory on two year warranties work. I'll wait....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Grigis 

 

First of all, the 2 years warranty is an EU directive. Second, someone posted this: "After 6 months the consumer has to prove the fault was present at the time of purchase or delivery". There's no such thing in the law. The fault can manifest itself even two weeks before the deadline, the consumer has only to prove that the fault is not user-generated.

 

That's exactly what the directive says. As made clear earlier fault present at the time of delivery does not have to be noticeable at the time of delivery or purchase. It could be a manufacturing flaw that manifests itself later as a part not lasting as long as it should and failing early - either before or after 6 months.  Before 6 months the automatic assumption is that it is the manufacturers problem and the customer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of the sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. After 6 months the consumer needs to prove that the fault was present at the time of sale, i.e., not dropped at home causing the hard drive to pack up. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

In your case, you're admitting that the faulty headphone socket is not important to you, and it is of course your choice to not do anything about it.

 

But surely, you would agree that having ridiculously long warranties where customers could come in years after they bought something and claim that it was always broken is not necessarily a good law, and it would encourage certain people to take advantage of it, which would cause Apple's revenue to shrink.

 

I do believe that if there is something wrong with somebody's device, that they should get it fixed in a reasonable amount of time, if it is important to them, and not many years later.

I disagree.  As an example, the Macbook Unibody I am typing this on.  Everything seemed fine for months until one day I had a requirement to install software from a dual layer DVD.  It wouldn't read it.  It was fine with CD's and single layer DVDs.  The fault could have easily gone undiscovered for well over a year by someone until, like me, they needed to use a dual layer disc.  How would I or anyone else be taking advantage of Apple in such a case?  Turned out the problem was widespread and a lot, if not all the original drives in these machines were defective.  I will bet there are some poor sods why didn't discover the problem within the warranty period or didn't read about the problem being widespread.  I assume they were stuck with paying for a replacement drive themselves when they eventually discovered the problem.

European Union are 27 countries with about 500 000 000 people, maybe Apple should think twice on this, because the warranty law most probably is not going to change!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

I wouldn't believe anybody who claimed that they had a faulty headphone socket and they never did anything about it for two whole years. It's much more likely, that the device was 100% fine, and the defect occurred afterwards, and then that would be the customer's own fault.

 

The basic idea is that if the defect was in the product, but manifested itself later it is still a defect that existed in the product at the time of purchase (for example material failures). For example a wasting machine can be assumed to have a motor that should last for 6+ years. If the motor fails at 4 years, the laws in many countries regard that as a failure sooner than the expected lifetime of the product. Thus requiring some compensation from the seller (the user has however benefitted for 4 years so no full refund). So the "reasonable lifetime" varies by product time. Typically refrigerators, ovens, washing machines etc. have a longer expected lifetime than electronics. Electronics seems to have a lifetime expectancy ranging from the bare minimum 6 months, to the more common two years within the EU.

In Finland for example the simplified rule goes: "Any failure other than physical damage within 12 months on electronics (batteries 3mo)-> Under warranty no questions asked. Between 12-24 months, the consumer must prove a defect in the original product (material or design)". In practice this has lead to most manufacturers to give outright two year warranties to avoid the extra hassle and bad rep for fighting about every single case between 12-24 months.

In your example if the headphone had worked for 20 months but failed at 22 months for example, it would still be regarded as a defect hiding in the original product as a headphone socket would be expected to last at least the two years. So no, not the customer's own fault unless the seller/manufacturer can prove misuse of the product itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Those European laws are retarded, made by retards for retards.

 

If you go to Apple's site, you can read the warranty information for various countries and I took a look at a few of the European countries.

 

They're all here:

http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/Additional_Legal_Rights_for_Consumers.html

 

Apple's regular one year warranty and AppleCare both covers defects arising after the customer takes delivery.

 

The Euro two year plan which some people are mentioning covers defects present when customer takes delivery. So basically, it's a useless law, as there's no need for a two year plan for somebody to realize that there is something wrong with their device. That is something that customers find out shortly after buying their device, if there's something wrong with it. They don't find out two years later that something is wrong. That is BS. And Apple should be very strict in enforcing the rules of that euro two year plan, as it does not cover any defects arising after the customer takes delivery. So if a random eurohead walks into an Apple store with a problem after 1 year, Apple is under no obligation to fix the problem, as the customer has no legal

warranty, as long as the defect occurred after the customer took delivery.

 

If people want extra laws that are silly and a waste of time, then Apple should charge those customers extra for that additional feature.

The EU directive is just another safeguard for consumers, it does not exist in insulation. Firms selling electronic items are obliged to offer their own statutory warranty for a minimum of one year. Thus the suggestion that you have to prove anything in the first year is moot.

Increasingly firms in the EU are offering free 2 year warranties, eg HTC and Sony. If a product fails  within 2 years it will be repaired for free (excluding wear and tear and abuse).

Personally I can see why the courts are considering the 30 day ban. Apple have given shown them 2 fingers so far by refusing to play ball and in a fit of "throwing their toys out of the proverbial pram" the have harmed customer relations by insisting that customers not holding AppleCare submit independent reports before they are willing to fix items. The ban will harm the image of Apple far more than a fine. Fines are supposed to be punitive but the courts don't have the authority to impose a fine large enough to have any real impact on Apple.

I expect to see Apple back down pretty soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

 

The EU directive is just another safeguard for consumers, it does not exist in insulation. Firms selling electronic items are obliged to offer their own statutory warranty for a minimum of one year. Thus the suggestion that you have to prove anything in the first year is moot.

 

Increasingly firms in the EU are offering free 2 year warranties, eg HTC and Sony. If a product fails  within 2 years it will be repaired for free (excluding wear and tear and abuse).

 

Personally I can see why the courts are considering the 30 day ban. Apple have given shown them 2 fingers so far by refusing to play ball and in a fit of "throwing their toys out of the proverbial pram" the have harmed customer relations by insisting that customers not holding AppleCare submit independent reports before they are willing to fix items. The ban will harm the image of Apple far more than a fine. Fines are supposed to be punitive but the courts don't have the authority to impose a fine large enough to have any real impact on Apple.

 

I expect to see Apple back down pretty soon.

Best post ever. Apple doesn't agree with the Italian's court interpretation of an Italian law. Well of course Apple knows better as usual. As an Apple enthusiast I am really getting a bit tired of Apple. Just change the wording and be down with it. This "we know better" attitude is getting old...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

As for your iPhone, if you're in the US, you get a one year warranty. If you wish to be extra safe, then you should've gotten AppleCare. 

No, Apple should warranty the phone for the life of the contract that comes along with it. Having a phone that was completely useless two weeks outside the warranty is complete bullshit. I still have a few Nokia phones that are 10 years old and work perfectly fine. Why should I have to "make sure" what essentially is an almost $1k device (unsubsidized) works after a year? And pay extra for it? Is Apple's quality so bad that I should expect every phone they make to not be able to last 12 months of very good care? Can Apple do no wrong in your eyes? Because that statement is utter bull. The iPhone should last more than 1 year of use, and I shouldn't have to pay for a whole new phone because a tiny little mic quit working. That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. I bought Applecare for my MBP, but a effing telephone should have longer than a 1 year warranty simply because you are contractually obligated to use it for two year, the warranty should cover 2 years. End of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

If you wish to be extra safe, then you should've gotten AppleCare. 

Heh. The curveball here is that you can't even get AppleCare for iPhones in several EU countries (don't ask me why, don't know). AppleCare is available for Macs and iPads though. Makes me wonder why the discussion is only for the iPhone. The iPad has the same two year AppleCare.

Interesting to watch how this unfolds. Is this the first time the EU consumer protection laws are being fought by a big corporation in this manner?

I still don't get the European law. My iPhone was purchased over a year ago. I do have a problem that I have to press the button repeatedly sometimes. Bought it

from O2, not from Apple. So should I be able to go to O2 and have them repair it for free? If they ask me to prove that this was a fault at delivery, how the heck

would I do that? What's the point of asking a consumer to prove anything -- how will he or she be able to do that anyhow?

I live in Germany so quoting the German interpretation of the law doesn't make sense here. So I've searched for the UK interpretation of the law and

found: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02239.pdf.

Quote:

>> These consumer rights are available for up to two years following purchase. If the defect becomes apparent within the first six months of purchase,
>> it will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery, otherwise this will be for the consumer to prove. 

What kind of "consumer rights" law asks me to prove that the defect existed at the time of the deliver? If O2 asks me to prove that the faulty button existed

at time of delivery, how the fluke do I do that?

I actually think that Apple is correct here. It's this stupid EU law that makes no sense. At least I can understand the Apple warranty. Shit, I don't even know

where to go to to read the official law. All I can find is interpretations of the law.

Hm, actually it makes sense that Apple claims that Italy is misinterpreting the EU law. After all, it all comes down to interpretations of the law, even for

Italy. It's not an Italian law. Apple claiming that Italy is misinterpreting an Italian law would be funny, but this is not applicable here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabara 

I still don't get the European law. My iPhone was purchased over a year ago. I do have a problem that I have to press the button repeatedly sometimes. Bought it

from O2, not from Apple. So should I be able to go to O2 and have them repair it for free? If they ask me to prove that this was a fault at delivery, how the heck

would I do that? What's the point of asking a consumer to prove anything -- how will he or she be able to do that anyhow?

 

My understanding is that if you can prove that the button is not functional (and it should be functional after less than two years), you can claim that it has broken prematurely and is thus a defect in the original product (since the button failed before the expected lifetime of the product). Of course the UK could be different, but this is how the Finnish press explains the EU law.

Another example is my VW 1.4 TSI engine which has a stretched cam chain. Expensive to replace, warranty ended two years ago (2008 model car). But since the consumer body states that the expected lifetime of a car engine is 250000 km and a cam chain should last the lifetime of the engine, my 70000km driven engine had a fault from the factory -> VW pays for the fix even though the car is over 4 years old. So the proof was: a) chain is designed to last lifetime of engine b) engine lifetime is designed for 250kkm c) chain failed at 70kkm -> must have been defective at factory. That's all there was to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabara 

I still don't get the European law. My iPhone was purchased over a year ago. I do have a problem that I have to press the button repeatedly sometimes. Bought it

from O2, not from Apple. So should I be able to go to O2 and have them repair it for free? If they ask me to prove that this was a fault at delivery, how the heck

would I do that? What's the point of asking a consumer to prove anything -- how will he or she be able to do that anyhow?

 

I live in Germany so quoting the German interpretation of the law doesn't make sense here. So I've searched for the UK interpretation of the law and

found: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02239.pdf.

 

Quote:

>> These consumer rights are available for up to two years following purchase. If the defect becomes apparent within the first six months of purchase,
>> it will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery, otherwise this will be for the consumer to prove. 

 

What kind of "consumer rights" law asks me to prove that the defect existed at the time of the deliver? If O2 asks me to prove that the faulty button existed

at time of delivery, how the fluke do I do that?

 

I actually think that Apple is correct here. It's this stupid EU law that makes no sense. At least I can understand the Apple warranty. Shit, I don't even know

where to go to to read the official law. All I can find is interpretations of the law.

 

Hm, actually it makes sense that Apple claims that Italy is misinterpreting the EU law. After all, it all comes down to interpretations of the law, even for

Italy. It's not an Italian law. Apple claiming that Italy is misinterpreting an Italian law would be funny, but this is not applicable here.

 EU directives are not laws, they are advisory notices that member states are required to base laws on. Hence they will be interpreted in slightly different ways throughout the EU, depending on existing laws in that country.

Assuming that the button on your phone has not failed as a result of abuse IMO, O2 should be obliged to repair it for free. It is reasonable to accept that a button will last  2 years, if it doesn't then you can argue that the button was of inferior quality, ie. was faulty from the day that you purchased it.

Quality control assumes that not all components are created equal. Manufacturers have "acceptable" failure rates. They know that, for example, 0.1% of products will never work, 2% will fail after 12 months and 7% will fail after 24 months. The numbers that i have chosen are arbitrary and plucked out of the air, never-the-less, the person selling you a product knows that there is a chance that you will get a duff product. The better manufacturers will take this into account when returns arise. The less scrupulous ones will spin company line BS about you having misused the product.

I am not familiar with German law but suggest that you do the following

1. Contact O2 and tell them that the phone is not "fit for purpose". Your contract  with O2 (and not Apple) is for 24 months, this includes a phone. It is reasonable to assume that the phone part of the contract should last as long as the contract. 

2. Contact your equivalent of Trading Standards and ask them to pursue the case for you.

3. Alternatively take advantage of any free legal advice from your home insurers or bank account (etc).

TBH I do not completely understand the EU directive. Inspite of what Apple says, I  have seen many other sources that suggest that nature of the directive is to move the onus of proof to the vendor for the 24 month period.  eg

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2057937/Your-rights-mobile-phone-breaks-contract.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

 If you wish to be extra safe, then you should've gotten AppleCare. 

No, if you want to be extra safe then pay a little more and get 3rd party insurance that will cover; failure, loss, accidental damage and theft.

AppleCare is just an insurance policy which doesn't cover anything other than defects that should not occur within a 24 month period. Hence the point of the legal action in Italy...

iPhone AppleCare= approx £70, 3rd party= approx £70

Below is an example policy which costs the same as AppleCare. Can you spot the differences?

http://www.insurance2go.co.uk/iphone-insurance

Accidental Damage (Including Liquid Damage)
Overseas cover (30 days a year)
Cover for your Immediate Family (if over the age of 16)
No contract (you can cancel the policy at any time)
Immediate cover (our insurance starts on the day you sign up

Theft
Up to £1000 of Unauthorised Calls
Mobile wallet protection
LOSS

AppleCare

Telephone support

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

Below is an example policy which costs the same as AppleCare. Can you spot the differences?

http://www.insurance2go.co.uk/iphone-insurance
Accidental Damage (Including Liquid Damage)

Overseas cover (30 days a year)

Cover for your Immediate Family (if over the age of 16)

No contract (you can cancel the policy at any time)
Immediate cover (our insurance starts on the day you sign up
Theft

Up to £1000 of Unauthorised Calls

Mobile wallet protection

LOSS

AppleCare
Telephone support

 

• Book a Genius bar appointment via the Website or the Apple Store App, no matter in which country you are
• Go there
• Walk out with a working identical new or Apple-refurbished product. No charges, no wait times, no questions asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreyfus2 


That is quite a bit oversimplified. Comparing a warranty extension to an insurance does simply not work.
This insurer has quite some fine print and omissions:
- Excess charges between 50 and 70 GBP for some incidents
- You need to have paid at least a year worth of insurance fees to have certain claims processed
- They reserve the right to give you 'refurbished' (by whom?) or similar devices (whose definition?), or pay out the remaining value (established by whom?) minus excess charges, minus whatever is missing to 12 months of payments. (Not saying they will do anything evil, just that these terms are nowhere clear cut.)
- They do not mention covering regular, out of warranty, repairs. So, for regular repairs you still have to deal with the vendor, who, being a telco or warehouse, could leave you without a phone for weeks or months.
- The insurance is tied to a combination of person and IMEI (plus immediate family members). It is not transferrable, like AppleCare, thus no addition to the resale value.
- They do not detail any 'overseas cover', at least they do not explicitly say that they will help you abroad, only that they will e.g, accept police reports (and help you, when you are back home?). AppleCare will help you in every country where Apple sells iPhones.
- If you have a defect (not caused by accidental damage) in the second year, you can go back to your dealer, and proof that the defect was present when you received the device. At least they do not seem to say anywhere that they would cover such repairs.
... and that is after looking at their page for less than two minutes. I am not saying it is a bad or mediocre offer, just that the comparison is pretty pointless.
Even if you think:

Quote:

AppleCare is just an insurance policy which doesn't cover anything other than defects that should not occur within a 24 month period. Hence the point of the legal action in Italy...

The reality is that the EU mandated implied warranty does explicitly put the customer in charge of proofing that a defect was present on delivery after exactly 6 months. Laws do not include 'should not' provisions normally. As the EU implied warranty has to be provided by the seller, not the manufacturer, you are bound to their service quality (after the first year of free AppleCare, in which you can freely go to the reseller or to Apple as you please).
Apple's AppleCare service is normally:

• Book a Genius bar appointment via the Website or the Apple Store App, no matter in which country you are
• Go there
• Walk out with a working identical new or Apple-refurbished product. No charges, no wait times, no questions asked.

Extending this comfort to 24 months is a very good investment.
The alternative, with your insurance model, is dealing with a reseller. My sister was without her Galaxy II for almost 7 weeks, paying 3 times shipping and handling and finally buying a new phone, as she needed one. The discussions with the carrier (and letters back and forth) are still ongoing after almost a quarter.
And, where I am, I can add an iPhone to my household insurance for a fraction of 70 GBP (18 EUR actually) and they cover foreign stays for up to 6 weeks a year.

 If a paid for warranty extension is not insurance then what is it?  The vendor is telling you that there is a reasonable possibility that his product will fail between 12 and 24 months, he pitches a price that he considers will not leave him out of pocket and that is attractive enough to the customer to gamble on the phone breaking.

I was not endorsing the insurance policy that I hyperlinked to. I was merely suggesting that the risk averse might be better off with 3rd party policies.

I admit that I didn't take the time to read the T&Cs of the link I provided and accept that all policies have caveats. Even the AppleCare policy has caveats. If you purchase an iphone in the Europe you are not covered in the rest of the world  "Apple may restrict service for iPad and iPhone to the EEA and Switzerland."  Much of the confusion regarding AppleCare seems to stem from the fact that Applecare varries from country, not sure why it does but it is apple's perogative to vary terms as it sees fit (subject to national laws).

You suggest that AppleCare is good value, IMO better value would be a free 2 year guarantee mirroring those offered by many of their competators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_CA 


You didn't get a contract with Apple.

 ???

You can get an iphone in store with a contract but I guess technically however you are not buying it from Apple. Perhaps they are acting as agents

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_CA 
You didn't get a contract with Apple.

So what you're basically saying is that you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation? Okay, thanks for letting us know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_CA 

Actually, it means basically that you are an idiot and cannot read/understand simple sentences.
Why should/would Apple warranty a product simply because you have a contract with another company else?

Because they sell a device in their stores and online that comes with a two year service contract. How is that so hard to understand? Do you have a learning or reasoning disability? I mean that in no offense, it just seems that anyone with common sense would understand why a device tied to a two year service contract should work for the entire time without the end user having to pay to have any problems that aren't caused by their own negligence. I ask you, why shouldn't Apple make a device that is guaranteed to work for the entire life of the contract that it is tied to? If I buy something that Apple produces that requires another service to work, and one they twisted the arm of to get onto the very competitive market, I expect it to work without fault for the entire time I'm obligated to use it. Is your problem that you think Apple can't make a device that will work without fail for two years? I think they most certainly can and they should stand by their superior quality by telling customers that if it doesn't work faultlessly for the entire service contract life, they will either fix or replace it at no cost. I know that people can, and do abuse their electronics, but they already have terms and conditions that cover this. Apple offering a two year warranty would do nothing other than bolster their already stellar reputation. I expect ALL phone manufacturers to offer this warranty, not just Apple. If someone sells you a cell phone, it should last the entire life of the service contract you sign when you buy it. Not really that hard to understand.

Also, I could probably understand your sentences better if you didn't write like an idiot. Before you call me an idiot for not having what you consider an adequate reading level, you might want to write coherently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HKZ 

 

Because they sell a device in their stores and online that comes with a two year service contract. How is that so hard to understand? Do you have a learning or reasoning disability? I mean that in no offense, it just seems that anyone with common sense would understand why a device tied to a two year service contract should work for the entire time without the end user having to pay to have any problems that aren't caused by their own negligence. I ask you, why shouldn't Apple make a device that is guaranteed to work for the entire life of the contract that it is tied to? If I buy something that Apple produces that requires another service to work, and one they twisted the arm of to get onto the very competitive market, I expect it to work without fault for the entire time I'm obligated to use it. Is your problem that you think Apple can't make a device that will work without fail for two years? I think they most certainly can and they should stand by their superior quality by telling customers that if it doesn't work faultlessly for the entire service contract life, they will either fix or replace it at no cost. I know that people can, and do abuse their electronics, but they already have terms and conditions that cover this. Apple offering a two year warranty would do nothing other than bolster their already stellar reputation. But I guess when you slob Apple knob you can't see past the end of your own nose. I expect ALL phone manufacturers to offer this warranty, not just Apple. If someone sells you a cell phone, it should last the entire life of the service contract you sign when you buy it. Not really that hard to understand.

 

Also, I could probably understand your sentences better if you didn't write like an idiot. Before you call me an idiot for not having what you consider an adequate reading level, you might want to write coherently.

 Whilst i have sympathy for your argument, Apple are not technically selling you the contract. IMO there is a degree of buck passing (after-all they are getting paid commission). I agree that phones should be offered with limited two year guarantees as standard and find it difficult to see why some many members feel that such a move would be negative. At a minimum, perhaps the phone service providers should offer the service (when they are the ones selling you the phone).