I think Apple will just take their licks on this one. It's entirely plausible that as Korean law stands they did accidentally infringe, so they'll settle the class action suit at a couple hundred dollars per phone and then laugh when Samsung, LG and HTC get sued for the same amount.
Apple likes to be a good corporate citizen, look at the business in Taiwan, where they've done as required and obeyed the silly local consumer laws. They'll seek to minimize the expense but they'll almost certainly settle a class action suite and just keep on keeping on.
I think Apple will just take their licks on this one. It's entirely plausible that as Korean law stands they did accidentally infringe, so they'll settle the class action suit at a couple hundred dollars per phone and then laugh when Samsung, LG and HTC get sued for the same amount.
Apple likes to be a good corporate citizen, look at the business in Taiwan, where they've done as required and obeyed the silly local consumer laws. They'll seek to minimize the expense but they'll almost certainly settle a class action suite and just keep on keeping on.
I'd suspect nearly all international corporations avoid fracturing their policies due to local laws and reg's as much as possible. And nearly all probably try to ignore some of those regional requirements until pushed. For instance the EU has a regulation concerning electronic devices (Product Warranty Directive / 1999/44/EC) that Apple would prefer not to deal with as it would materially affect the sale of their Applecare policy. Italy, for instance, recently started an investigation into Apple's compliance. In practical terms the EU rule effectively extends the hardware warranty on your new electronic device (ie iPad, iPhone etc) to two years, negating most of the value in the Apple extended warranty in year 2. But unless you purchase the AppleCare policy, owner's report Apple claims they don't have an obligation to repair/replace your device if found to be defective after the standard one-year warranty.
I imagine the speed of compliance with local laws has a direct correlation with the cost to a company to be a "good corporate citizen", no matter what your line of business.
I imagine the speed of compliance with local laws has a direct correlation with the cost to a company to be a "good corporate citizen", no matter what your line of business.
Sure, it certainly has a cost, and sure Apple isn't perfect, but the whole 'Apple exceptionalism' argument really doesn't apply in this case. Apple doesn't get into pissing fights with governments, Google does. Sometimes that's actually one of Google's virtues - but in this instance it will probably mean that Apple will be far less aggressive in handling the SKorea situation than some Apple die-hards might believe.
That EU directive isn't in force across all of Europe by the way, only some member states have ratified it. The UK at least has not, to my knowledge.
Sure, it certainly has a cost, and sure Apple isn't perfect, but the whole 'Apple exceptionalism' argument really doesn't apply in this case. Apple doesn't get into pissing fights with governments, Google does. Sometimes that's actually one of Google's virtues - but in this instance it will probably mean that Apple will be far less aggressive in handling the SKorea situation than some Apple die-hards might believe.
That EU directive isn't in force across all of Europe by the way, only some member states have ratified it. The UK at least has not, to my knowledge.
I wasn't singling out Apple at all, but simply staying within the context of the comment. As I mentioned, I'm pretty confident saying that nearly all multinational companies do what they can to avoid having different policies and procedures across different markets, and that the cost to do so probably comes into play. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's sometimes decided it's better for a company's bottom line to pay a fine than comply with some odd regulation.
EDIT: You are correct that the UK consider's their "fit for purpose" rules to be stronger, and thus haven't ratified the EU directive. But in some cases it would really benefit even UK consumers to at least push for the protections afforded by the EU's PWD 1999/44/EC. There's a very good explanation of what it is and how it can assist a consumer with device issues outside a manufacturer's typical one year or less warranty term here:
I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's sometimes decided it's better for a company's bottom line to pay a fine than comply with some odd regulation.
If you don't comply they just keep fining you, eventually it adds up.
Quote:
EDIT: You are correct that the UK consider's their "fit for purpose" rules to be stronger, and thus haven't ratified the EU directive. But in some cases it would really benefit even UK consumers to at least push for the protections afforded by the EU's PWD 1999/44/EC. There's a very good explanation of what it is and how it can assist a consumer with device issues outside a manufacturer's typical one year or less warranty term here:
Comments
I think Apple will just take their licks on this one. It's entirely plausible that as Korean law stands they did accidentally infringe, so they'll settle the class action suit at a couple hundred dollars per phone and then laugh when Samsung, LG and HTC get sued for the same amount.
Apple likes to be a good corporate citizen, look at the business in Taiwan, where they've done as required and obeyed the silly local consumer laws. They'll seek to minimize the expense but they'll almost certainly settle a class action suite and just keep on keeping on.
Silly to us maybe....
I think Apple will just take their licks on this one. It's entirely plausible that as Korean law stands they did accidentally infringe, so they'll settle the class action suit at a couple hundred dollars per phone and then laugh when Samsung, LG and HTC get sued for the same amount.
Apple likes to be a good corporate citizen, look at the business in Taiwan, where they've done as required and obeyed the silly local consumer laws. They'll seek to minimize the expense but they'll almost certainly settle a class action suite and just keep on keeping on.
I'd suspect nearly all international corporations avoid fracturing their policies due to local laws and reg's as much as possible. And nearly all probably try to ignore some of those regional requirements until pushed. For instance the EU has a regulation concerning electronic devices (Product Warranty Directive / 1999/44/EC) that Apple would prefer not to deal with as it would materially affect the sale of their Applecare policy. Italy, for instance, recently started an investigation into Apple's compliance. In practical terms the EU rule effectively extends the hardware warranty on your new electronic device (ie iPad, iPhone etc) to two years, negating most of the value in the Apple extended warranty in year 2. But unless you purchase the AppleCare policy, owner's report Apple claims they don't have an obligation to repair/replace your device if found to be defective after the standard one-year warranty.
I imagine the speed of compliance with local laws has a direct correlation with the cost to a company to be a "good corporate citizen", no matter what your line of business.
I imagine the speed of compliance with local laws has a direct correlation with the cost to a company to be a "good corporate citizen", no matter what your line of business.
Sure, it certainly has a cost, and sure Apple isn't perfect, but the whole 'Apple exceptionalism' argument really doesn't apply in this case. Apple doesn't get into pissing fights with governments, Google does. Sometimes that's actually one of Google's virtues - but in this instance it will probably mean that Apple will be far less aggressive in handling the SKorea situation than some Apple die-hards might believe.
That EU directive isn't in force across all of Europe by the way, only some member states have ratified it. The UK at least has not, to my knowledge.
Silly to us maybe....
7 day return policy on software is just silly, sorry. LIkewise 7 day return on a book would turn bookstores into lending libraries.
Sure, it certainly has a cost, and sure Apple isn't perfect, but the whole 'Apple exceptionalism' argument really doesn't apply in this case. Apple doesn't get into pissing fights with governments, Google does. Sometimes that's actually one of Google's virtues - but in this instance it will probably mean that Apple will be far less aggressive in handling the SKorea situation than some Apple die-hards might believe.
That EU directive isn't in force across all of Europe by the way, only some member states have ratified it. The UK at least has not, to my knowledge.
I wasn't singling out Apple at all, but simply staying within the context of the comment. As I mentioned, I'm pretty confident saying that nearly all multinational companies do what they can to avoid having different policies and procedures across different markets, and that the cost to do so probably comes into play. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's sometimes decided it's better for a company's bottom line to pay a fine than comply with some odd regulation.
EDIT: You are correct that the UK consider's their "fit for purpose" rules to be stronger, and thus haven't ratified the EU directive. But in some cases it would really benefit even UK consumers to at least push for the protections afforded by the EU's PWD 1999/44/EC. There's a very good explanation of what it is and how it can assist a consumer with device issues outside a manufacturer's typical one year or less warranty term here:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...#StartComments
I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's sometimes decided it's better for a company's bottom line to pay a fine than comply with some odd regulation.
If you don't comply they just keep fining you, eventually it adds up.
EDIT: You are correct that the UK consider's their "fit for purpose" rules to be stronger, and thus haven't ratified the EU directive. But in some cases it would really benefit even UK consumers to at least push for the protections afforded by the EU's PWD 1999/44/EC. There's a very good explanation of what it is and how it can assist a consumer with device issues outside a manufacturer's typical one year or less warranty term here:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...#StartComments
We tend to steer clear of EU regs for as long as possible - especially as they can't even fine us most of the time