Apparently it's not as open and shut as you make it out to be, or as I thought it was after the Italian verdict. They said that the way the EU law reads and the German government has interpreted the second year only requires the manufacturer to replace products with flaws that existed at the time of delivery (not found at the time of delivery like the article says). However at least in Germany it is not accepted that any flaw within 2 years must have been present at delivery. Some EU countries apparently have more consumer friendly interpretations of the law that do require 2 years of complete warranty, but it isn't a EU wide policy for 2 years of complete manufacturers warranty.
You really hit the nail on the head - the wording of the EU law is the problem and I believe the law also notes that it's assumed flaws did not exist at the time of delivery if 6 months have passed. Apple's legal staff in Europe are fully aware of the law and have exploited it to ensure they can keep selling the warranties. Also, the Apple warranty includes features such as technical support that aren't included in the EU warranty law. As you noted, different countries (e.g. Italy) are interpreting the law more favorable to the consumer but ultimately the EU law will probably have to be changed.
I'm in Portugal and I've bought Macs through the online store and never had a problem activating the 2nd year of warranty. And I have used it twice. The main difference is that I actually use an Apple certified repair service close by, which never let me down, repairing everything within 1-2 days.
Since my 27" imac is in its third year, the hard drive and the graphic card both broke. I am pretty glad I took the Apple care because botth repairs would had cost 600$. I always take the apple care, but here in canada the mandadory warranty is 1 year. Note that the problems occured in the 3rd year, so a 2 year warranty would not had helped.
I also had a MBP break, in that case they had to replace the unit. With the new retina MBP being almost unrepairable, I sure hope people are taking Apple care on it. The new MBP is divided into costly modules for repairs :for example, if the webcamp breaks, they will need to replace the entire screen for 700$.
warranty or not, in the UK we have our sale of goods act which means products should be fit for purpose. You could take Apple to court claiming that a $2000+ computer should be expected to last at least 3 years.
Applecare still has benefits though such as on-site repair or advanced parts replacement.
Question: Does Apple make a profit on Applecare? If they do, I would question the ethics of it. It would be fair enough for the scheme to cover its costs, but it should be a service to customers rather than a source of profit.
It's unlikely that they are. Same with the training thing.
also,
1. my Portuguese is rough but I do believe that the first footnote is a reference to 'in addition to protections provided by the law'. Apple is not required to spell those out. Anymore than your landlord is required to spell out local rental law to you.
2. Can AI stop misquoting the Italian law. It does NOT require service for two years point blank. It requires service or replacement for up to two years IF the item was defective at the time of delivery. And beyond six months after purchase the buyer has to prove it was defective at time of delivery. Which few to no customers will be able to do and thus make claim on the law. And they can only even attempt the claim with the person that sold it to them. So if they bought it at the Italian version of Best Buy or Joe's computers, that's who they go to. NOT Apple. Whereas with Apple Care the seller doesn't matter, in many cases the country doesn't matter. Nor does when the defect happen. All that matter is whether it can be proven that it was caused by the customer. If they can prove customer damage you are SOL, otherwise its covered.
If the Portuguese law is the same, Apple isn't doing anything wrong. They aren't required to spend an hour telling every customer every law that applies to their stuff etc. And like in Italy there is no proof that someone bought a computer at Apple, could prove it was defective at time of delivery after the standard one year was up and Apple refused them service. So the claim can't be made that they weren't following the laws regardless of what they were or were not saying.
Some EU countries apparently have more consumer friendly interpretations of the law that do require 2 years of complete warranty, but it isn't a EU wide policy for 2 years of complete manufacturers warranty.
The Czech Republic and Poland are the only two that I know of that require 2 years flat coverage for anything that isn't clear user damage. Everyone else is as you were told in Germany, max period for assumption of 'delivery defect' that I have seen is 6 months. Also, every one of them requires that you go to the seller. In some countries that is not Apple as they don't have stores there. An issue I get to deal with a lot cause my job takes me all over the world at times.
Without giving away too much I will say pumping people up with Applecare is a big focus for apple.
I have pretty reliable evidence that newer macs have more average part failures then macs from say 4-5 years ago. If I was a theorist, I'd say this is an attempt to get people to buy more applecare.
That's not the right comparison though. Apple is not an insurance company, they make consumer products which should work. If they don't work, it is their responsibility to redress their failing.
They do redress failings. If they delivered a defective product it is fair to say that that product will fail within the first year. Heck if it is defective it will likely fail in the first couple of months.
Computers, iphones etc are complex items. It is possible to delivery a 100% perfect product that over a period of a year or so is worn down by customer use, being bounced around in the car, banged around in a school bag, overheats cause you left it in the sun etc and have a failure. That isn't Apple's fault. That's wear and tear and no law requires them to cover that. So unless I can prove without a doubt that despite my handling for say 18 months, I was sold a lemon, they don't have to cover it. And there's little to no way that I can prove that. No one can.
Because my job takes me literally around the world I deal with a lot of different places for service. When I was on a location shoot outside of Prague last year we have a laptop that was acting up. There as no Apple Store near to us at the time so I went to a 3rd party repair shop. They wanted me to pay $200 just to diagnose the issue and then parts which started at $400 for a new hard drive and went up. It was a 2.5 year old laptop that we did have Apple Care on but this shop wasn't an Apple authorized provider so they wouldn't take the Apple Care. And they said we wouldn't have it back for at good week cause they don't even work on the weekends. That was a no good at the time. So our local agent ordered a new laptop for us to use. And after we got what files we needed off the buggy one he had someone drive to Prague (4 hours away) to take the laptop to an AASP. They tested the computer for two days, only got it to fail once and yet still replaced just over $1000 in parts and no labor fee. All off our $349 Apple Care which had been used several times on that machine already.
Sure there are some folks that buy Apple Care and never need it but something tells me that the "profit" from those folks isn't actually as it rolls into folks like me who get repairs that are way over the fee we paid or the so called "Apple Tax". I've had other cases like the one I mention and every one of them was well over the Apple Care fee. $169 covering a $300 hard drive replacement and as the drive hadn't totally failed they actually put the old one in a drive sled and tried to copy over our files as a courtesy cause we are one of the biggest customers at said particular store. $349 covered a $700 power port replacement which even I suspect was actually caused by water but they couldn't prove it so they don't argue it and just fix it.
Apple has even replaced GPUs and hard drives for machines that were as much as 5 years old that had actually never failed on many machines and were likely fine at time of delivery and the whole Apple Care period for free simply because they weren't happy with the number that eventually wore out and how fast that happened. Including refunding folks that had paid for a replacement.
Compare this to Dell etc or even Best Buy's pricing for service and the issue if Apple making money off this is less clear. Much less clear. As is the notion that they don't take care of their products in accordance with and even above the law.
warranty or not, in the UK we have our sale of goods act which means products should be fit for purpose. You could take Apple to court claiming that a $2000+ computer should be expected to last at least 3 years.
Applecare still has benefits though such as on-site repair or advanced parts replacement.
So how long should a $30-40k car be expected to last? 15 to 20 years? Good luck in court with that one.
I dont get it, they are sueing on the word used on the Apple care box (which is retarded imo)?
or
are they sueing because Apple do not honor the free second year warranty (which makes more sense) ?
If it's anything like in Italy they are suing because the sales staff at Apple doesn't give you the details of every local law before mentioning Apple Care, it's not spelled out in detail on the website in like 50 different locations etc. Not because anyone wasn't given what the law actually requires (as opposed to what they think the law requires)
The only wild card is the bizarre Portuguese interpretation that any defect which occurs during the first 2 years must have been present at delivery. So if I drop my phone in the toilet or run over it with a car, that's a warranty expense?
That interpretation is not bizarre. It is part of the EU law as well in a couple of countries. There are exceptions like batteries which will naturally consume so a battery that runs down in 18 months isn't proven to have been defective when you bought it. but otherwise yes it is possible that it was defective at time of delivery. Slim possibility but because it is possible those countries make the SELLER assume that is the case.
If you drop your phone in water or run over it that's not a defect that's damage and no one requires the seller or manufacturer to cover that. At a cost or otherwise. Apple could legally shrug their shoulders at you and tell you that now you get to buy a $500+ phone cause you screwed up.
I've generally found it useful on 1st generation products (e.g., the new retina MBP) where Apple tends to have relatively large issues, and worthless by the 3rd generation of a product where Apple has ironed out most of the bugs.
Since my 27" imac is in its third year, the hard drive and the graphic card both broke. I am pretty glad I took the Apple care because botth repairs would had cost 600$. I always take the apple care, but here in canada the mandadory warranty is 1 year. Note that the problems occured in the 3rd year, so a 2 year warranty would not had helped.
I also had a MBP break, in that case they had to replace the unit. With the new retina MBP being almost unrepairable, I sure hope people are taking Apple care on it. The new MBP is divided into costly modules for repairs :for example, if the webcamp breaks, they will need to replace the entire screen for 700$.
Yeah, stuff breaks. I'm not saying not to buy it, I'm just saying that it's almost necessary on 1st gen apple stuff. I had lots of trouble with each of my 1st gen TI powerbook, iPod, and Macbook Air with stuff like click wheels and logic boards (in particular, the 1st gen Macbook Air was a disaster). My feeling now is that I don't buy AppleCare on 3rd gen and later stuff. If they break once, then I pay for the repair which is usually about the same cost as AppleCare (this isn't universally true). If it breaks twice then I buy a new product (I keep laptops for 3-4 years). I'm handy enough to replace hard drives, so this has worked out so far.
The Czech Republic and Poland are the only two that I know of that require 2 years flat coverage for anything that isn't clear user damage. Everyone else is as you were told in Germany, max period for assumption of 'delivery defect' that I have seen is 6 months. Also, every one of them requires that you go to the seller. In some countries that is not Apple as they don't have stores there. An issue I get to deal with a lot cause my job takes me all over the world at times.
I believe Hungary also has the same 2 year flat coverage. So far the Dresden, Germany store is the easternmost European Apple Store. Fortunately Dresden is barely more than 90 minutes away by car from Prague, and would be less if they'd ever finish the highway segment that they've been working on for years and years.
The Czech Republic and Poland are the only two that I know of that require 2 years flat coverage for anything that isn't clear user damage. Everyone else is as you were told in Germany, max period for assumption of 'delivery defect' that I have seen is 6 months. Also, every one of them requires that you go to the seller. In some countries that is not Apple as they don't have stores there. An issue I get to deal with a lot cause my job takes me all over the world at times.
Yes, but keep in mind that even if you have a 2 year warranty, you're not paying for 'nothing' during the first 2 years. Applecare covers a lot more than hardware repairs.
Actually the implementations are supposed to be similar since they are transposed from Directive 99/44/EC which covers all cases of lack of conformity for two years regardless of when they are detected so long as lack of conformity is reported within two months of the time of detection (Article 5). Since all member states are supposed to have transposed this directive by 2002-01-01, Apple is essentially violating consumer protection laws in all EU member states, It is, however, unfortunate that consumer rights groups are fighting this, as I prefer to fight this kind of thing on my own when companies really annoy me, but I have other resources to use against Apple if I ever need to.
AppleCare covers more than warranty items. If you have non-warranty damage to your phone during the first 2 years, AppleCare would cover it, but the warranty wouldn't - so you ARE getting more services during the entire 3 years for your money. Plus, Apple care offers services beyond repair of the product. AppleCare offers technical support and software support that are not covered by the warranty - so it's not like you're paying for nothing.
Now, granted, you're getting less in places where the warranty is 2 years than in the US, but if they didn't have to offer a 2 year warranty, AppleCare would probably cost more.
The only wild card is the bizarre Portuguese interpretation that any defect which occurs during the first 2 years must have been present at delivery. So if I drop my phone in the toilet or run over it with a car, that's a warranty expense?
Applecare USA and AppleCare Rest of the World are two very different beasts. The American version covers accidental damage (extra costs) where as the Rest doesn't. The Rest version only covers faults not arsing from abuse/wear'n'tear, that is to say the very things that the Portuguese warranty covers you for- faults that should not be expected to arise in a two year window unless a component has been poorly manufactured.
Unless one thinks that they are going to need (non beta or V1 software) telephone support after year one they are able to save a substantial amount by not taking out Applecare. Given that AppleCare is only 2 years for phones and ipads
Applecare for other products however is a different matter, the 3rd year cover exceeds the statutory requirements.
Ultimately when it comes down to it, Apple should know what the laws are in each country and just abide by them. Each time they do something silly like this they tarnish their image
That interpretation is not bizarre. It is part of the EU law as well in a couple of countries. There are exceptions like batteries which will naturally consume so a battery that runs down in 18 months isn't proven to have been defective when you bought it. but otherwise yes it is possible that it was defective at time of delivery. Slim possibility but because it is possible those countries make the SELLER assume that is the case.
If you drop your phone in water or run over it that's not a defect that's damage and no one requires the seller or manufacturer to cover that. At a cost or otherwise. Apple could legally shrug their shoulders at you and tell you that now you get to buy a $500+ phone cause you screwed up.
The law expects batteries to degrade but within limits. A battery that only holds, for example, 30% capacity after 18 months might well be considered faulty..
Personally I think the assumption that a solid state item should last for 2 years is very fair
There are times when i wish that we in the UK would adopt the same interpretation of the directive. Our 7 year rule is, in theory, superior but more difficult to enforce/prove. I guess our law is fairer to vendors, if my TV fails after 6.5 years, the vendor is not expected to repair it at no cost. If it is proven that the component was faulty, the monetary utility that I have gained from the TV is deducted from the cost of repairs. So if I only watched that TV once (and can prove it) I will have to contribute very little, whereas if I watched it every day i will have to contribute much more.
Yes, but keep in mind that even if you have a 2 year warranty, you're not paying for 'nothing' during the first 2 years. Applecare covers a lot more than hardware repairs.
Software support aside, the only real advantage would be the speed with which the device is repaired. I don't know if AppleCare specifically rules out the use of reconditioned units or not. If it does promise to replace faulty units with a brand new device then yes that would be another advantage.
There are times when i wish that we in the UK would adopt the same interpretation of the directive. Our 7 year rule is, in theory, superior but more difficult to enforce/prove. I guess our law is fairer to vendors, if my TV fails after 6.5 years, the vendor is not expected to repair it at no cost. If it is proven that the component was faulty, the monetary utility that I have gained from the TV is deducted from the cost of repairs. So if I only watched that TV once (and can prove it) I will have to contribute very little, whereas if I watched it every day i will have to contribute much more.
Any EU citizen can file a complaint against a member state if they feel that EC directives are not being implemented correctly, and if after evaluation by the European Commission, the member state is found to not be complying, they will be fined until compliance is verified.
EDIT: Furthermore, EU citizens affected by a member state's lack of compliance are entitled to redress.
I) The portuguese law extended the consumer protection beyond the European Union regulations.
II) The portuguese law states that the salesperson answers by any lack of conformity of the product with the contract. If this lack of conformity appears after 2 years counting from the delivery date, then it does create the presumption that it already existed on delivery date.
Instead of being the consumer that has to prove that the deficiency occurred within the 2 years, it makes the seller responsible, unless he proves otherwise.
This is just a legal scheme used to transfer the risk to the salesperson completely and it does have some repercussions. Considering that it is the celebration of a contract that transfers the propriety and subsequently the risk, it could be possible that just seconds after the celebration of the contract the product could go haywire (short circuit for example) and the responsibility could fall on the buyer. This norm prevents this and makes the salesperson responsible all the way.
This protection is just offered to one that buys consumer products from a professional vendor, so if you buy a car from your friend and it gets broken seconds after you close the deal, you will have to pay your own repairs.
III) The central question here is that Apple is eluding its costumers and even its sellers. I recall buying my first iPod Mini and it came with a one year warranty paper. That was like 6 years ago and it was indeed strange because the law had already fixed a 2 year warranty. I remember that the vendors simply didn't knew what to say about this, even though they were forced to give the 2 year warranty.
The law states very clearly that the warranty papers should be brief and have clear information. The fine can go up to 30 000€.
IV) Considering specifically the case of the Apple Care Service, it could go exactly the same way as the Italian decision, aiming for unfair consumer practices, which could certainly go for higher fines.
They argue the Apple Care paid service offers the same protection as the one they should offer, by legal imposition.
V) DECO also referred to other consumer protections that are not mentioned by Apple. If a salesperson sells a faulty equipment, the buyer can ask for a repair, substitution, price reduction or contract resolution. Apple only refers the first two.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Apparently it's not as open and shut as you make it out to be, or as I thought it was after the Italian verdict. They said that the way the EU law reads and the German government has interpreted the second year only requires the manufacturer to replace products with flaws that existed at the time of delivery (not found at the time of delivery like the article says). However at least in Germany it is not accepted that any flaw within 2 years must have been present at delivery. Some EU countries apparently have more consumer friendly interpretations of the law that do require 2 years of complete warranty, but it isn't a EU wide policy for 2 years of complete manufacturers warranty.
You really hit the nail on the head - the wording of the EU law is the problem and I believe the law also notes that it's assumed flaws did not exist at the time of delivery if 6 months have passed. Apple's legal staff in Europe are fully aware of the law and have exploited it to ensure they can keep selling the warranties. Also, the Apple warranty includes features such as technical support that aren't included in the EU warranty law. As you noted, different countries (e.g. Italy) are interpreting the law more favorable to the consumer but ultimately the EU law will probably have to be changed.
I'm in Portugal and I've bought Macs through the online store and never had a problem activating the 2nd year of warranty. And I have used it twice. The main difference is that I actually use an Apple certified repair service close by, which never let me down, repairing everything within 1-2 days.
I guess you can just take a look at http://www.apple.com/pt/buy/locator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Since my 27" imac is in its third year, the hard drive and the graphic card both broke. I am pretty glad I took the Apple care because botth repairs would had cost 600$. I always take the apple care, but here in canada the mandadory warranty is 1 year. Note that the problems occured in the 3rd year, so a 2 year warranty would not had helped.
I also had a MBP break, in that case they had to replace the unit. With the new retina MBP being almost unrepairable, I sure hope people are taking Apple care on it. The new MBP is divided into costly modules for repairs :for example, if the webcamp breaks, they will need to replace the entire screen for 700$.
warranty or not, in the UK we have our sale of goods act which means products should be fit for purpose. You could take Apple to court claiming that a $2000+ computer should be expected to last at least 3 years.
Applecare still has benefits though such as on-site repair or advanced parts replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue
Question: Does Apple make a profit on Applecare? If they do, I would question the ethics of it. It would be fair enough for the scheme to cover its costs, but it should be a service to customers rather than a source of profit.
It's unlikely that they are. Same with the training thing.
also,
1. my Portuguese is rough but I do believe that the first footnote is a reference to 'in addition to protections provided by the law'. Apple is not required to spell those out. Anymore than your landlord is required to spell out local rental law to you.
2. Can AI stop misquoting the Italian law. It does NOT require service for two years point blank. It requires service or replacement for up to two years IF the item was defective at the time of delivery. And beyond six months after purchase the buyer has to prove it was defective at time of delivery. Which few to no customers will be able to do and thus make claim on the law. And they can only even attempt the claim with the person that sold it to them. So if they bought it at the Italian version of Best Buy or Joe's computers, that's who they go to. NOT Apple. Whereas with Apple Care the seller doesn't matter, in many cases the country doesn't matter. Nor does when the defect happen. All that matter is whether it can be proven that it was caused by the customer. If they can prove customer damage you are SOL, otherwise its covered.
If the Portuguese law is the same, Apple isn't doing anything wrong. They aren't required to spend an hour telling every customer every law that applies to their stuff etc. And like in Italy there is no proof that someone bought a computer at Apple, could prove it was defective at time of delivery after the standard one year was up and Apple refused them service. So the claim can't be made that they weren't following the laws regardless of what they were or were not saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Some EU countries apparently have more consumer friendly interpretations of the law that do require 2 years of complete warranty, but it isn't a EU wide policy for 2 years of complete manufacturers warranty.
The Czech Republic and Poland are the only two that I know of that require 2 years flat coverage for anything that isn't clear user damage. Everyone else is as you were told in Germany, max period for assumption of 'delivery defect' that I have seen is 6 months. Also, every one of them requires that you go to the seller. In some countries that is not Apple as they don't have stores there. An issue I get to deal with a lot cause my job takes me all over the world at times.
Without giving away too much I will say pumping people up with Applecare is a big focus for apple.
I have pretty reliable evidence that newer macs have more average part failures then macs from say 4-5 years ago. If I was a theorist, I'd say this is an attempt to get people to buy more applecare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue
That's not the right comparison though. Apple is not an insurance company, they make consumer products which should work. If they don't work, it is their responsibility to redress their failing.
They do redress failings. If they delivered a defective product it is fair to say that that product will fail within the first year. Heck if it is defective it will likely fail in the first couple of months.
Computers, iphones etc are complex items. It is possible to delivery a 100% perfect product that over a period of a year or so is worn down by customer use, being bounced around in the car, banged around in a school bag, overheats cause you left it in the sun etc and have a failure. That isn't Apple's fault. That's wear and tear and no law requires them to cover that. So unless I can prove without a doubt that despite my handling for say 18 months, I was sold a lemon, they don't have to cover it. And there's little to no way that I can prove that. No one can.
Because my job takes me literally around the world I deal with a lot of different places for service. When I was on a location shoot outside of Prague last year we have a laptop that was acting up. There as no Apple Store near to us at the time so I went to a 3rd party repair shop. They wanted me to pay $200 just to diagnose the issue and then parts which started at $400 for a new hard drive and went up. It was a 2.5 year old laptop that we did have Apple Care on but this shop wasn't an Apple authorized provider so they wouldn't take the Apple Care. And they said we wouldn't have it back for at good week cause they don't even work on the weekends. That was a no good at the time. So our local agent ordered a new laptop for us to use. And after we got what files we needed off the buggy one he had someone drive to Prague (4 hours away) to take the laptop to an AASP. They tested the computer for two days, only got it to fail once and yet still replaced just over $1000 in parts and no labor fee. All off our $349 Apple Care which had been used several times on that machine already.
Sure there are some folks that buy Apple Care and never need it but something tells me that the "profit" from those folks isn't actually as it rolls into folks like me who get repairs that are way over the fee we paid or the so called "Apple Tax". I've had other cases like the one I mention and every one of them was well over the Apple Care fee. $169 covering a $300 hard drive replacement and as the drive hadn't totally failed they actually put the old one in a drive sled and tried to copy over our files as a courtesy cause we are one of the biggest customers at said particular store. $349 covered a $700 power port replacement which even I suspect was actually caused by water but they couldn't prove it so they don't argue it and just fix it.
Apple has even replaced GPUs and hard drives for machines that were as much as 5 years old that had actually never failed on many machines and were likely fine at time of delivery and the whole Apple Care period for free simply because they weren't happy with the number that eventually wore out and how fast that happened. Including refunding folks that had paid for a replacement.
Compare this to Dell etc or even Best Buy's pricing for service and the issue if Apple making money off this is less clear. Much less clear. As is the notion that they don't take care of their products in accordance with and even above the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScartArt
warranty or not, in the UK we have our sale of goods act which means products should be fit for purpose. You could take Apple to court claiming that a $2000+ computer should be expected to last at least 3 years.
Applecare still has benefits though such as on-site repair or advanced parts replacement.
So how long should a $30-40k car be expected to last? 15 to 20 years? Good luck in court with that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I dont get it, they are sueing on the word used on the Apple care box (which is retarded imo)?
or
are they sueing because Apple do not honor the free second year warranty (which makes more sense) ?
If it's anything like in Italy they are suing because the sales staff at Apple doesn't give you the details of every local law before mentioning Apple Care, it's not spelled out in detail on the website in like 50 different locations etc. Not because anyone wasn't given what the law actually requires (as opposed to what they think the law requires)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The only wild card is the bizarre Portuguese interpretation that any defect which occurs during the first 2 years must have been present at delivery. So if I drop my phone in the toilet or run over it with a car, that's a warranty expense?
That interpretation is not bizarre. It is part of the EU law as well in a couple of countries. There are exceptions like batteries which will naturally consume so a battery that runs down in 18 months isn't proven to have been defective when you bought it. but otherwise yes it is possible that it was defective at time of delivery. Slim possibility but because it is possible those countries make the SELLER assume that is the case.
If you drop your phone in water or run over it that's not a defect that's damage and no one requires the seller or manufacturer to cover that. At a cost or otherwise. Apple could legally shrug their shoulders at you and tell you that now you get to buy a $500+ phone cause you screwed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes
I'm sure that Apple makes a fortune on Applecare.
I've generally found it useful on 1st generation products (e.g., the new retina MBP) where Apple tends to have relatively large issues, and worthless by the 3rd generation of a product where Apple has ironed out most of the bugs.
Since my 27" imac is in its third year, the hard drive and the graphic card both broke. I am pretty glad I took the Apple care because botth repairs would had cost 600$. I always take the apple care, but here in canada the mandadory warranty is 1 year. Note that the problems occured in the 3rd year, so a 2 year warranty would not had helped.
I also had a MBP break, in that case they had to replace the unit. With the new retina MBP being almost unrepairable, I sure hope people are taking Apple care on it. The new MBP is divided into costly modules for repairs :for example, if the webcamp breaks, they will need to replace the entire screen for 700$.
Yeah, stuff breaks. I'm not saying not to buy it, I'm just saying that it's almost necessary on 1st gen apple stuff. I had lots of trouble with each of my 1st gen TI powerbook, iPod, and Macbook Air with stuff like click wheels and logic boards (in particular, the 1st gen Macbook Air was a disaster). My feeling now is that I don't buy AppleCare on 3rd gen and later stuff. If they break once, then I pay for the repair which is usually about the same cost as AppleCare (this isn't universally true). If it breaks twice then I buy a new product (I keep laptops for 3-4 years). I'm handy enough to replace hard drives, so this has worked out so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
The Czech Republic and Poland are the only two that I know of that require 2 years flat coverage for anything that isn't clear user damage. Everyone else is as you were told in Germany, max period for assumption of 'delivery defect' that I have seen is 6 months. Also, every one of them requires that you go to the seller. In some countries that is not Apple as they don't have stores there. An issue I get to deal with a lot cause my job takes me all over the world at times.
I believe Hungary also has the same 2 year flat coverage. So far the Dresden, Germany store is the easternmost European Apple Store. Fortunately Dresden is barely more than 90 minutes away by car from Prague, and would be less if they'd ever finish the highway segment that they've been working on for years and years.
Yes, but keep in mind that even if you have a 2 year warranty, you're not paying for 'nothing' during the first 2 years. Applecare covers a lot more than hardware repairs.
Actually the implementations are supposed to be similar since they are transposed from Directive 99/44/EC which covers all cases of lack of conformity for two years regardless of when they are detected so long as lack of conformity is reported within two months of the time of detection (Article 5). Since all member states are supposed to have transposed this directive by 2002-01-01, Apple is essentially violating consumer protection laws in all EU member states, It is, however, unfortunate that consumer rights groups are fighting this, as I prefer to fight this kind of thing on my own when companies really annoy me, but I have other resources to use against Apple if I ever need to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Your analysis is incorrect.
AppleCare covers more than warranty items. If you have non-warranty damage to your phone during the first 2 years, AppleCare would cover it, but the warranty wouldn't - so you ARE getting more services during the entire 3 years for your money. Plus, Apple care offers services beyond repair of the product. AppleCare offers technical support and software support that are not covered by the warranty - so it's not like you're paying for nothing.
Now, granted, you're getting less in places where the warranty is 2 years than in the US, but if they didn't have to offer a 2 year warranty, AppleCare would probably cost more.
The only wild card is the bizarre Portuguese interpretation that any defect which occurs during the first 2 years must have been present at delivery. So if I drop my phone in the toilet or run over it with a car, that's a warranty expense?
Applecare USA and AppleCare Rest of the World are two very different beasts. The American version covers accidental damage (extra costs) where as the Rest doesn't. The Rest version only covers faults not arsing from abuse/wear'n'tear, that is to say the very things that the Portuguese warranty covers you for- faults that should not be expected to arise in a two year window unless a component has been poorly manufactured.
Unless one thinks that they are going to need (non beta or V1 software) telephone support after year one they are able to save a substantial amount by not taking out Applecare. Given that AppleCare is only 2 years for phones and ipads
Applecare for other products however is a different matter, the 3rd year cover exceeds the statutory requirements.
Ultimately when it comes down to it, Apple should know what the laws are in each country and just abide by them. Each time they do something silly like this they tarnish their image
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
That interpretation is not bizarre. It is part of the EU law as well in a couple of countries. There are exceptions like batteries which will naturally consume so a battery that runs down in 18 months isn't proven to have been defective when you bought it. but otherwise yes it is possible that it was defective at time of delivery. Slim possibility but because it is possible those countries make the SELLER assume that is the case.
If you drop your phone in water or run over it that's not a defect that's damage and no one requires the seller or manufacturer to cover that. At a cost or otherwise. Apple could legally shrug their shoulders at you and tell you that now you get to buy a $500+ phone cause you screwed up.
The law expects batteries to degrade but within limits. A battery that only holds, for example, 30% capacity after 18 months might well be considered faulty..
Personally I think the assumption that a solid state item should last for 2 years is very fair
There are times when i wish that we in the UK would adopt the same interpretation of the directive. Our 7 year rule is, in theory, superior but more difficult to enforce/prove. I guess our law is fairer to vendors, if my TV fails after 6.5 years, the vendor is not expected to repair it at no cost. If it is proven that the component was faulty, the monetary utility that I have gained from the TV is deducted from the cost of repairs. So if I only watched that TV once (and can prove it) I will have to contribute very little, whereas if I watched it every day i will have to contribute much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, but keep in mind that even if you have a 2 year warranty, you're not paying for 'nothing' during the first 2 years. Applecare covers a lot more than hardware repairs.
Software support aside, the only real advantage would be the speed with which the device is repaired. I don't know if AppleCare specifically rules out the use of reconditioned units or not. If it does promise to replace faulty units with a brand new device then yes that would be another advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
There are times when i wish that we in the UK would adopt the same interpretation of the directive. Our 7 year rule is, in theory, superior but more difficult to enforce/prove. I guess our law is fairer to vendors, if my TV fails after 6.5 years, the vendor is not expected to repair it at no cost. If it is proven that the component was faulty, the monetary utility that I have gained from the TV is deducted from the cost of repairs. So if I only watched that TV once (and can prove it) I will have to contribute very little, whereas if I watched it every day i will have to contribute much more.
Any EU citizen can file a complaint against a member state if they feel that EC directives are not being implemented correctly, and if after evaluation by the European Commission, the member state is found to not be complying, they will be fined until compliance is verified.
EDIT: Furthermore, EU citizens affected by a member state's lack of compliance are entitled to redress.
I) The portuguese law extended the consumer protection beyond the European Union regulations.
II) The portuguese law states that the salesperson answers by any lack of conformity of the product with the contract. If this lack of conformity appears after 2 years counting from the delivery date, then it does create the presumption that it already existed on delivery date.
Instead of being the consumer that has to prove that the deficiency occurred within the 2 years, it makes the seller responsible, unless he proves otherwise.
This is just a legal scheme used to transfer the risk to the salesperson completely and it does have some repercussions. Considering that it is the celebration of a contract that transfers the propriety and subsequently the risk, it could be possible that just seconds after the celebration of the contract the product could go haywire (short circuit for example) and the responsibility could fall on the buyer. This norm prevents this and makes the salesperson responsible all the way.
This protection is just offered to one that buys consumer products from a professional vendor, so if you buy a car from your friend and it gets broken seconds after you close the deal, you will have to pay your own repairs.
III) The central question here is that Apple is eluding its costumers and even its sellers. I recall buying my first iPod Mini and it came with a one year warranty paper. That was like 6 years ago and it was indeed strange because the law had already fixed a 2 year warranty. I remember that the vendors simply didn't knew what to say about this, even though they were forced to give the 2 year warranty.
The law states very clearly that the warranty papers should be brief and have clear information. The fine can go up to 30 000€.
IV) Considering specifically the case of the Apple Care Service, it could go exactly the same way as the Italian decision, aiming for unfair consumer practices, which could certainly go for higher fines.
They argue the Apple Care paid service offers the same protection as the one they should offer, by legal imposition.
V) DECO also referred to other consumer protections that are not mentioned by Apple. If a salesperson sells a faulty equipment, the buyer can ask for a repair, substitution, price reduction or contract resolution. Apple only refers the first two.