EU again points finger at Apple over warranty rights

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 49
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by msimpson View Post



    If the warranty regulations are different in each EU country, than that is problem for not only Apple but every other business. I suspect the reason Apple gets singled out is because they are making lots of money and they are a big visible target. Maybe Apple does need to do more in certain countries, but I don't think they are maliciously trying rip consumers off.



    Apple understands that keeping a current customer happy is as important as getting new customers. When I see stories about people complaining about Apple's services or business methods I always laugh because I have gotten nothing but excellent customer service from Apple and I have received horrible service from a lot companies that people just seem to accept as normal practice. Apple gets held to a higher standard. How is Samsung's service in the EU?



    Whatever Apple does with the EU, they need to repatriate any profits made in the EU back to the USA as soon as possible, even if it means paying more US taxes on the profits, because based on the mess in Cyprus and what has happened in Greece and Spain, the socialist welfare states of Europe are going after anyone with money or savings.



    Apple is target from the leeches because they are successful.


     


    Have you looked at the state of US government debt lately?


     


    Most western democracies are suffering a seemingly endemic problem of their operating costs greatly exceeding their revenue.  My personal view is that this is to a large degree because large corporations are minimising the tax they pay by choosing to base operations in countries with the lowest corporate tax rates they can find.  This is perfectly legal, but also immoral.  I don't know what the solution is but there clearly needs to be one.

  • Reply 22 of 49
    EU wants to get involved to generate more EU revenue via fines.
  • Reply 23 of 49
    umrk_labumrk_lab Posts: 550member


    The entire EU policy is based on the premises that all problems can be solved by more competition, and Mrs Reding is, in that respect, a sort of extremist, if I may say so. The last sentence (which has nothing to do with Apple) illustrates this ("Reding suggested that the Commission could draw attention to recurring problems across the EU, possibly by publicizing tools such as online price comparisons and consumer reviews."). What the hell does this mean ? she wants to pass a legislation forcing for this ?


     


    The funny thing is that these overpaid civil servants enjoy maximum privileges of all sort, while preaching competition, precarity, flexibility, etc ... for others ....


     


    Apple is just an easy target, which probably did not invest enough in the necessary lobbying (15 000 lobbyists in Brussels ! (you see, we are able to copy some aspects of US politic/business life (unfortunately not the best ones ...))


     


    May be Apple will end up as it did in Italy, and simply stop proposing AppleCare in EU ...

  • Reply 24 of 49
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post




    And you have beautifully illustrated why Apple is getting a rap over the knuckles.  Those so called 'geniuses' are making misleading statements.  The relevant EU directive does not state anything about the defects having to be present at the time of purchase.  The directive in question state:


     


    ...


     


    So, given the premium price of most Apple products and their often touted quality, a consumer could reasonably expect them to function for at least two years.  If an Apple genius tried to tell me I shouldn't expect my Macbook Retina Pro to last two years, he would soon be in urgent need a proctologist.


     


    Here in Ireland, I have read anecdotal reports of Apple employees telling customers straight out that they are not covered by the EU mandated statutory 2 year period - which is an outright lie.


     


    This is why Apple is at fault.  They are clearly not educating their employees about this legislation and the rights their customers are entitled to under it.



     


    Well, as this quote was from a German Apple Store, the 'geniuses' were not making any misleading statements at all, they stated exactly what the German law states. AN EU-directive is no law. It is up to the member states to create laws in line with the directives. Some states have 'better' (for the consumer) laws than what the EU asks for, some have adopted the directive 1:1, and some have diluted the directive to take some burden / risk off the dealers. (In theory, consumers in countries with worse protection could approach the EU court and might 'win' a ruling stating that the e.g. German law, like in most member countries, is not fully in line with the directive. But that takes ages, costs a fortune, and even if one 'wins', the actual verdict would still have to be validated by a court in the home state.) The problem here really is, that Apple (and others) are getting beaten by proxy here, as the EU has limited means to fully enforce directives to be turned into state laws 1:1. 


     


    About the anecdotal evidence from Ireland... If Apple staff really did that, then they are indeed wrong. Still, I would be very careful with taking these reports at face value. As @lukefrench correctly stated above, the EU implied warranty has to be provided by the dealer/reseller, not the manufacturer. If people bring defective items (in the second year) to an Apple Genius Bar, but the original purchase was not directly made from Apple (but from e.g. an authorized reseller), then it is indeed not Apple's liability to provide that warranty. Same goes for purchases made outside the EU. When the USD was very weak some years ago, we had tons of people bringing in Apple gear from the US, Apple did honor the 1-year warranty and any Apple Care contracts just fine, but several people without Apple Care tried to have items repaired under EU implied warranty terms, despite the items having been purchased elsewhere...

  • Reply 25 of 49
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Have you looked at the state of US government debt lately?

    Most western democracies are suffering a seemingly endemic problem of their operating costs greatly exceeding their revenue.  My personal view is that this is to a large degree because large corporations are minimising the tax they pay by choosing to base operations in countries with the lowest corporate tax rates they can find.  This is perfectly legal, but also immoral.  I don't know what the solution is but there clearly needs to be one.

    Why is that immoral? A company is in business to make money for its shareholders. If it can make more money by basing its operation in Switzerland rather than France, why shouldn't it?

    It's not all about taxes, either. Companies consider all relevant factors - taxes, cost of operations, labor pool, salaries, proximity to customers, etc, etc.

    Why is it OK to consider locating so you can be near a good supply of labor, but not to consider taxes in your determination?

    cnocbui wrote: »

    And you have beautifully illustrated why Apple is getting a rap over the knuckles.  Those so called 'geniuses' are making misleading statements.  The relevant EU directive does not state anything about the defects having to be present at the time of purchase.  The directive in question state:


    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML

    So, given the premium price of most Apple products and their often touted quality, a consumer could reasonably expect them to function for at least two years.  If an Apple genius tried to tell me I shouldn't expect my Macbook Retina Pro to last two years, he would soon be in urgent need a proctologist.

    Of course it should last 2 years. That doesn't mean that there won't be defects - including defects that show up after the device is placed in service. Or even defects caused by misuse.

    A Mercedes costs an awful lot more than a Mac. Should it be expected to last 40 times as long - and Mercedes required to give a 80 year warranty?
    umrk_lab wrote: »
    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">The entire EU policy is based on the premises that all problems can be solved by more competition, and Mrs Reding is, in that respect, a sort of extremist, if I may say so. The last sentence (which has nothing to do with Apple) illustrates this ("</span>
    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Reding suggested that the Commission could draw attention to recurring problems across the EU, possibly by publicizing tools such as online price comparisons and consumer reviews."). What the hell does this mean ? she wants to pass a legislation forcing for this ?</span>

    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">The funny thing is that these overpaid civil servants enjoy maximum privileges of all sort, while preaching competition, </span>
    <span style="line-height:18px;">precarity, flexibility, etc ... for others ....</span>
    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Apple is just an easy target, which probably did not invest enough in the necessary </span>
    <span style="line-height:18px;">lobbying (15 000 lobbyists in Brussels ! (you see, we are able to copy some aspects of US politic/business life (unfortunately not the best ones ...))</span>

    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">May be Apple will end up as it did in Italy, and simply stop proposing AppleCare in EU ...</span>

    Which would be a major negative for consumers. AppleCare is a good optional program and if they drop it, it lessens choice.
  • Reply 26 of 49
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post


     


    May be Apple will end up as it did in Italy, and simply stop proposing AppleCare in EU ...



     


    Stop 'proposing' it, fine. But it would be very devastating, if they would stop offering it (this is what I understood happened in Italy for some products).


     


    With the EU implied warranty being unenforceable after 6 months (in most EU countries) and no Apple Care option, most Apple equipment would simply become unbearable for many users. It is even worse for business users, as the EU implied warranty does not cover commercial users, only consumers. This would de facto mean that a 1-year warranty would be the maximum you could get for any Apple gear. Most businesses would be forced to buy something else then.

  • Reply 27 of 49
    umrk_labumrk_lab Posts: 550member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post







    Which would be a major negative for consumers. AppleCare is a good optional program and if they drop it, it lessens choice.


     


     


    I totally agree with this ....

  • Reply 28 of 49
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post




    And you have beautifully illustrated why Apple is getting a rap over the knuckles.  Those so called 'geniuses' are making misleading statements.  The relevant EU directive does not state anything about the defects having to be present at the time of purchase.  The directive in question state:


     


     


    Quote:


    1. The seller must deliver goods to the consumer which are in conformity with the contract of sale.


    2. Consumer goods are presumed to be in conformity with the contract if they:


    (a) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the qualities of the goods which the seller has held out to the consumer as a sample or model;


    (b) are fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them and which he made known to the seller at the time of conclusion of the contract and which the seller has accepted;


    (c) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used;


    (d) show the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect, given the nature of the goods and taking into account any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.


     




     


    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML



     


    Well, it does state [emphasis mine]:


     


    Quote:


    (17) Whereas it is appropriate to limit in time the period during which the seller is liable for any lack of conformity which exists at the time of delivery of the goods; whereas Member States may also provide for a limitation on the period during which consumers can exercise their rights, provided such a period does not expire within two years from the time of delivery; whereas where, under national legislation, the time when a limitation period starts is not the time of delivery of the goods, the total duration of the limitation period provided for by national law may not be shorter than two years from the time of delivery;



     


    Where, without reading the entire document to find if there are precise definitions, I think it's safe to assume that, "time of delivery," means delivery to the consumer, which would be the time of receiving the purchase, or roughly, the time of purchase. So, you would appear to be wrong in your statement that, "The relevant EU directive does not state anything about the defects having to be present at the time of purchase."


     


    So, there may be some ambiguity, as indicated, and perhaps further ambiguity introduced in national legislation.


     


    It's also worth pointing out that AppleCare includes more than just warranty support -- i.e., technical support that would otherwise expire 90 days from the purchase.


     


    All that being said, I think Apple has an obligation, legal and moral, to both ensure they are in broad compliance with the laws of each country they do business in and provide only accurate information to consumers about the same. I'm not sure I have enough real information to know whether they are fulfilling that obligation or not in every instance. I hope they are.

  • Reply 29 of 49
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    umrk_lab wrote: »
    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">
    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">May be Apple will end up as it did in Italy, and simply stop proposing AppleCare in EU ...</span>

    Apple Care is much more than EU 2-year warranty. Furthermore, Apple Care will cover portable devices globally for 3 years.
  • Reply 30 of 49
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


    Stop 'proposing' it, fine. But it would be very devastating, if they would stop offering it (this is what I understood happened in Italy for some products).


     


    With the EU implied warranty being unenforceable after 6 months (in most EU countries) and no Apple Care option, most Apple equipment would simply become unbearable for many users. It is even worse for business users, as the EU implied warranty does not cover commercial users, only consumers. This would de facto mean that a 1-year warranty would be the maximum you could get for any Apple gear. Most businesses would be forced to buy something else then.



     


    The situation is not really that dire for businesses. Most businesses of any size probably don't buy AppleCare anyway, but "self-insure" their computer equipment. At least with Apple equipment, the failure rate beyond 1 year and before 3 years is relatively low, so in most cases it's probably cheaper for the company to simply assume that risk and not purchase AppleCare. (And they probably have their own staff to handle support issues.) Admittedly, the situation is riskier for smaller businesses, but, in my experience at least, it's probably only companies with fewer than 10 employees and/or no support staff where AppleCare makes sense.

  • Reply 31 of 49
    umrk_labumrk_lab Posts: 550member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post





    Apple Care is much more than EU 2-year warranty. Furthermore, Apple Care will cover portable devices globally for 3 years.


     


     


    I agree with what you said, but the Italian Justice was not happy with Applecare, even after Apple very clearly precised which were the terms of the contract, and Apple was fined twice for this, if I remember well ...

  • Reply 32 of 49
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    The situation is not really that dire for businesses. Most businesses of any size probably don't buy AppleCare anyway, but "self-insure" their computer equipment. At least with Apple equipment, the failure rate beyond 1 year and before 3 years is relatively low, so in most cases it's probably cheaper for the company to simply assume that risk and not purchase AppleCare. (And they probably have their own staff to handle support issues.) Admittedly, the situation is riskier for smaller businesses, but, in my experience at least, it's probably only companies with fewer than 10 employees and/or no support staff where AppleCare makes sense.



     


    Well, our biggest client has approx. 4,800 Apple computers and AppleCare for every single one of them. Support is not the issue, it is barely needed (we had three support calls since 2004, and even these were nonsense). Most of our clients use business leasing agreements and three years is pretty much the minimum term for computers. Lessors here do either not accept equipment without a warranty covering the lease period, or charge a lot more for them.

  • Reply 33 of 49
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


     


    Well, our biggest client has approx. 4,800 Apple computers and AppleCare for every single one of them. Support is not the issue, it is barely needed (we had three support calls since 2004, and even these were nonsense). Most of our clients use business leasing agreements and three years is pretty much the minimum term for computers. Lessors here do either not accept equipment without a warranty covering the lease period, or charge a lot more for them.



     


    Who are they leased from? I would think that the lessor would be the one paying for the AppleCare, and, in an instance like you describe above, the lessor could save themselves a lot of money by handling out of warranty repairs on their own dime. If AppleCare is, say $170/computer (27" iMac cost), that's $1700 for 10 computers. With a failure rate in years 2 & 3 of probably no more than 10% in my experience (maybe higher for laptops, but AppleCare price on those is higher, $350 for 15" rMBP) and an average repair bill of $1000 (which is high), it's still a lot cheaper not to buy AppleCare, especially when the support is unnecessary.


     


    For individuals, though, it's crazy not to buy AppleCare.

  • Reply 34 of 49

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The situation is not really that dire for businesses. Most businesses of any size probably don't buy AppleCare anyway, but "self-insure" their computer equipment. At least with Apple equipment, the failure rate beyond 1 year and before 3 years is relatively low, so in most cases it's probably cheaper for the company to simply assume that risk and not purchase AppleCare. (And they probably have their own staff to handle support issues.) Admittedly, the situation is riskier for smaller businesses, but, in my experience at least, it's probably only companies with fewer than 10 employees and/or no support staff where AppleCare makes sense.



    In the business I am in (a few hundred people work there), we are allowed to buy Macs, and we are actively encouraged to buy AppleCare.


     


    The reason is they've concluded, given the cost, that it's a wonderful deal: Apple handles all the major problems, reducing the need for full-time staff (who, in turn, can focus on network issues and such; and, the crappy PCs that unfortunately still proliferate thanks to some of the admin software that our admin people run.....)

  • Reply 35 of 49
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Who are they leased from? I would think that the lessor would be the one paying for the AppleCare, and, in an instance like you describe above, the lessor could save themselves a lot of money by handling out of warranty repairs on their own dime. If AppleCare is, say $170/computer (27" iMac cost), that's $1700 for 10 computers. With a failure rate in years 2 & 3 of probably no more than 10% in my experience (maybe higher for laptops, but AppleCare price on those is higher, $350 for 15" rMBP) and an average repair bill of $1000 (which is high), it's still a lot cheaper not to buy AppleCare, especially when the support is unnecessary.



     


    What they call 'business leasing' here is actually an installment purchase with pretty low interest rates, it is more a credit than a 'lease'. For equipment under warranty the annual interest in clearly below 2%. The lessor actually does nothing else than paying the initial bill and collecting the monthly payments. They have no IT know-how, support, etc. It is mainly a cash flow thing, and under ideal circumstances (business making enough profit to actually deduct the leasing amounts from taxes), you have your equipment for free. As long as this calculation works, the price paid for Apple Care does not really matter, can't be less than zero anyhow. Also, even Apple does give some relevant discounts on Apple Care, if you procure a certain amount of devices. The 'leasing' interest rate for equipment not under warranty (if even offered at all) is significantly higher, because the lessor must then be prepared to actually deal with warranty issues, repairs, replacement and even SLAs. Under the current model, all this is between the lessee and the dealer.


     


    If you look at standard business OEMs, like Dell, HP and Lenovo, they all offer 3 and 5 year warranty plans for businesses and most companies do buy them here. Exactly for the same reasons.

  • Reply 36 of 49
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


     


    Well, as this quote was from a German Apple Store, the 'geniuses' were not making any misleading statements at all, they stated exactly what the German law states. AN EU-directive is no law. It is up to the member states to create laws in line with the directives. Some states have 'better' (for the consumer) laws than what the EU asks for, some have adopted the directive 1:1, and some have diluted the directive to take some burden / risk off the dealers. (In theory, consumers in countries with worse protection could approach the EU court and might 'win' a ruling stating that the e.g. German law, like in most member countries, is not fully in line with the directive. But that takes ages, costs a fortune, and even if one 'wins', the actual verdict would still have to be validated by a court in the home state.) The problem here really is, that Apple (and others) are getting beaten by proxy here, as the EU has limited means to fully enforce directives to be turned into state laws 1:1. 


     


    About the anecdotal evidence from Ireland... If Apple staff really did that, then they are indeed wrong. Still, I would be very careful with taking these reports at face value. As @lukefrench correctly stated above, the EU implied warranty has to be provided by the dealer/reseller, not the manufacturer. If people bring defective items (in the second year) to an Apple Genius Bar, but the original purchase was not directly made from Apple (but from e.g. an authorized reseller), then it is indeed not Apple's liability to provide that warranty. Same goes for purchases made outside the EU. When the USD was very weak some years ago, we had tons of people bringing in Apple gear from the US, Apple did honor the 1-year warranty and any Apple Care contracts just fine, but several people without Apple Care tried to have items repaired under EU implied warranty terms, despite the items having been purchased elsewhere...



    Member states have to enact Directives.  They have to at least meet all aspects of the directive and in the case of the particular directive in question, they can enact legislation to provide greater protection than that dictated, but not less.  If Germany has enacted laws that do not fully enact the directive, they are in breach and can expect a fine.  You are perfectly correct about the burden being on the seller, but Apple itself is a high volume seller through it's stores, and the directive applies to those sales.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Why is that immoral? A company is in business to make money for its shareholders. If it can make more money by basing its operation in Switzerland rather than France, why shouldn't it?



    It's not all about taxes, either. Companies consider all relevant factors - taxes, cost of operations, labor pool, salaries, proximity to customers, etc, etc.



    Why is it OK to consider locating so you can be near a good supply of labor, but not to consider taxes in your determination?

    Of course it should last 2 years. That doesn't mean that there won't be defects - including defects that show up after the device is placed in service. Or even defects caused by misuse.



    A Mercedes costs an awful lot more than a Mac. Should it be expected to last 40 times as long - and Mercedes required to give a 80 year warranty?

    Which would be a major negative for consumers. AppleCare is a good optional program and if they drop it, it lessens choice.


     


    It is immoral because Governments provide a social climate and physical infrastructure that companies benefit from and therefore should contribute adequately to the provision thereof.  In my mind, their duty to shareholders comes a distant third, and behind that and treating their employees fairly.  Here in Ireland, the corporate tax rate Apple is misusing to engineer a good part of their massive profits in the EU is 12.5%.   Individuals, such as myself, are paying 20% at the low rate and 41% at the higher rate.  The disparity is legal, but immoral, in my opinion.


     


    Your Mercedes example is fatuous.  An iMac is expensive compared to a PC of equivalent specs.  Comparing it to the cost of a Merc or a mansion in Monaco is beyond disingenuous.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Well, it does state [emphasis mine]:


     


     


    Where, without reading the entire document to find if there are precise definitions, I think it's safe to assume that, "time of delivery," means delivery to the consumer, which would be the time of receiving the purchase, or roughly, the time of purchase. So, you would appear to be wrong in your statement that, "The relevant EU directive does not state anything about the defects having to be present at the time of purchase."


     


    So, there may be some ambiguity, as indicated, and perhaps further ambiguity introduced in national legislation.


     


    It's also worth pointing out that AppleCare includes more than just warranty support -- i.e., technical support that would otherwise expire 90 days from the purchase.


     


    All that being said, I think Apple has an obligation, legal and moral, to both ensure they are in broad compliance with the laws of each country they do business in and provide only accurate information to consumers about the same. I'm not sure I have enough real information to know whether they are fulfilling that obligation or not in every instance. I hope they are.



    I was not wrong in my statement.  The EU directive says nothing about 'defects'.  It talks about 'conformity', the definition of which I quoted and clearly includes an assessment of quality and longevity of performance of intended function.  If the brightness of the screen on my Macbook dimmed by 90%, 18 months after purchase, Apple might argue that wasn't a defect as it was still showing a visible image, but in terms of the directive, the criteria of expected quality would not be met.

  • Reply 37 of 49
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    For individuals, though, it's crazy not to buy AppleCare.

    Depending on the country you live in, buying AppleCare is crazy.
  • Reply 38 of 49
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    Have you looked at the state of US government debt lately?


     



    Have you looked at the level of US foreign aid lately?


     


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

  • Reply 39 of 49
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    I was not wrong in my statement.  The EU directive says nothing about 'defects'.  It talks about 'conformity', the definition of which I quoted and clearly includes an assessment of quality and longevity of performance of intended function.  If the brightness of the screen on my Macbook dimmed by 90%, 18 months after purchase, Apple might argue that wasn't a defect as it was still showing a visible image, but in terms of the directive, the criteria of expected quality would not be met.



     


    Your claim was that there was nothing in the directive that had to do with "at the time of purchase". There is. You were clearly wrong. And your latest post, quoted above, is just a song and dance routine to distract from that.

  • Reply 40 of 49
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post





    Depending on the country you live in, buying AppleCare is crazy.


     


    For example?

Sign In or Register to comment.