Yes - in fact Apple already has to adhere to NZ law. Any importer of consumer products is subject to the same law, whether they are headquartered here or not.
If any retailer tries to skirt their legal responsibilities it's an offense under consumer laws.
Elsewhere on the web people have suggested this leads to higher prices, however seeing as all products are subject to the same laws, and that prices for electronics can be cheaper here than in other countries with weaker consumer laws - this doesn't correlate.
Brands still price their products based on what is competitive and what the market will bear.
If Apple ever sets up a corporate presence in New Zealand they'll get exactly the same treatment here as in Australia. The NZ Consumer Guarantees Act has been around for a couple of decades, and proven to be highly effective, as well as fair and workable. It is this law that Australia used to base it own version that came into law in 2011.
Apple already has a NZ Address for sales from their website, so have to honor the CGA for sales
If Apple ever sets up a corporate presence in New Zealand they'll get exactly the same treatment here as in Australia. The NZ Consumer Guarantees Act has been around for a couple of decades, and proven to be highly effective, as well as fair and workable. It is this law that Australia used to base it own version that came into law in 2011.
If/when Apple moves into NZ properly, they'll have to flush the Applecare Protection Plans down the drain as they'll very quickly be tested and will, undoubtably, fail to meet the test of NZ law.
A computer that doesn't last three years, won't meet the Act. Neither would a smartphone that didn't last two years (presuming such devices have not been abused).
Arguably, the Act is between the seller and consumer (it doesn't apply to corporate purchases) and has less to do with the manufacturer. The consumer can take the goods back to the shop and rightly demand they be fixed or replaced (shop's discretion) to the standard set out in the Act. It's then up to the shop to battle it out with the manufacturer.
As I said, this has worked very well for a long time, so there's no point in arguing that it's a dumb law. It isn't. It works. It keeps companies honest and reduces the need for extended warranties to practically nil. Extended warranties are little more than additional profit for companies anyway. America could learn a little from Australia and NZ on this (as well has healthcare, but let's not get into that here!).
I see Samsung has the same 6 month warranty on mobile phone batteries in New Zealand as in Australia.
That should mean that Apple shouldn't have to honour any battery issues after six months.
Well, to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right (i.e. just 'cause Samsung does it doesn't mean Apple can too). Having said that, batteries are like ink in a pen; they get used up/wear out/can't last indefinitely. But I'd suggest that based on the expectation that goods last a 'reasonable' length of time, as defined in the NZ Consumer Guarantees Act, 6 months is probably too short.
Well, to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right (i.e. just 'cause Samsung does it doesn't mean Apple can too). Having said that, batteries are like ink in a pen; they get used up/wear out/can't last indefinitely. But I'd suggest that based on the expectation that goods last a 'reasonable' length of time, as defined in the NZ Consumer Guarantees Act, 6 months is probably too short.
You'll find other phone manufacturers, such as Nokia also offer 6 month warranties on batteries.
Why limit to 3 years. Why not make it 10! The manufacturer sets warranties based on many factors - not government dictates. When Apple agrees to provide extra coverage, I hope the Australian market is prepared for the additional cost. It seems that Australians complain about the higher costs for products in their market but forget the extra burden put on the product manufacturers. You want longer warranties? No problem. The cost is now $299 more. You had the option in the past but your government is taking that option away and making it a full-time requirement. You pay the freight. Government looks to be the good guy.
They have legal representation in NZ, you can lodge a CGA claim against them for Apple.
That is an inherently complex, and potentially costly, process; nothing like as simple as walking into the shop where you bought the goods and demanding your rights under the CGA. While of course Apple is supposed to play by NZ's rules, and if you have the time and money you can force them to, it is simply out of reach for many. I sincerely hope that someone has the wherewithal to bring a test case and thus compel Apple to concede that NZ law trumps their APP extended warranties.
That is an inherently complex, and potentially costly, process; nothing like as simple as walking into the shop where you bought the goods and demanding your rights under the CGA. While of course Apple is supposed to play by NZ's rules, and if you have the time and money you can force them to, it is simply out of reach for many. I sincerely hope that someone has the wherewithal to bring a test case and thus compel Apple to concede that NZ law trumps their APP extended warranties.
Wouldn't it be up to the place of purchase to handle warranty issues on behalf of Apple or other companies that don't have a presence?
In Australia we can perform retail swaps of iPhones in phone stores, some other manufacturers have followed Apple's lead in this, otherwise it's off to a repair centre for assessment and repair.
As I stated before Vodafone Australia has offered a two year warranty since 2010.
Only Apple and Samsung have their own retail stores and the Samsung experience stores send handsets out for repair.
Wouldn't it be up to the place of purchase to handle warranty issues on behalf of Apple or other companies that don't have a presence?
In Australia we can perform retail swaps of iPhones in phone stores, some other manufacturers have followed Apple's lead in this, otherwise it's off to a repair centre for assessment and repair.
As I stated before Vodafone Australia has offered a two year warranty since 2010.
Only Apple and Samsung have their own retail stores and the Samsung experience stores send handsets out for repair.
You're exactly right - it is the place of purchase's responsibility to handle this. I think I mentioned this in my original post. There are two problems with this though. 1) Apple puts huge pressure on sellers to play by 'their' rules. If the seller rocks the boat too much, the loose certain rights to things Apple provides (and ultimately the ability to even sell Apple products). So sellers can be very difficult to persuade to respect the CGA. 2) More and more people are buying directly from Apple via the web, so there is *no* 'place of purchase'. Without Apple having a physical presence here in NZ, we're between a rock and a hard place.
That is an inherently complex, and potentially costly, process; nothing like as simple as walking into the shop where you bought the goods and demanding your rights under the CGA. While of course Apple is supposed to play by NZ's rules, and if you have the time and money you can force them to, it is simply out of reach for many. I sincerely hope that someone has the wherewithal to bring a test case and thus compel Apple to concede that NZ law trumps their APP extended warranties.
Well you can do that, assuming you purchased your Apple device at a store. If you purchased the Apple device via the apple.co.nz online store, and you wish to lodge a CGA claim again them, you would need to do this via their legal representation.
So in saying this, if you are purchasing a non bto Apple item in NZ, you are probably best to purchase it from a reseller.
I think that companies should be able to offer different lengths of warranty for different kinds or quality of products. For example a 2013 Mac Pro could come with a 3 year warranty, but a Mac Mini could come with a one year warranty. When jurisdictions pass blanket rules that everything must come with e.g. a 2-year warranty, no matter what, that strikes me as an overly broad/unthinking approach to lawmaking.
Really, if there was no law about minimum guarantees, people would have nothing to go on but the brand name, and that would be to the benefit of companies like Apple. These thousands of no-name Chinese manufacturers would find their sales declining too I suspect.
Comments
Yes - in fact Apple already has to adhere to NZ law. Any importer of consumer products is subject to the same law, whether they are headquartered here or not.
If any retailer tries to skirt their legal responsibilities it's an offense under consumer laws.
Elsewhere on the web people have suggested this leads to higher prices, however seeing as all products are subject to the same laws, and that prices for electronics can be cheaper here than in other countries with weaker consumer laws - this doesn't correlate.
Brands still price their products based on what is competitive and what the market will bear.
Apple already has a NZ Address for sales from their website, so have to honor the CGA for sales
Apple already has a NZ Address for sales from their website, so have to honor the CGA for sales
You're right of course, but without a physical presence in NZ, it has proven very difficult to get Apple to honour the CGA.
If Apple ever sets up a corporate presence in New Zealand they'll get exactly the same treatment here as in Australia. The NZ Consumer Guarantees Act has been around for a couple of decades, and proven to be highly effective, as well as fair and workable. It is this law that Australia used to base it own version that came into law in 2011.
If/when Apple moves into NZ properly, they'll have to flush the Applecare Protection Plans down the drain as they'll very quickly be tested and will, undoubtably, fail to meet the test of NZ law.
A computer that doesn't last three years, won't meet the Act. Neither would a smartphone that didn't last two years (presuming such devices have not been abused).
Arguably, the Act is between the seller and consumer (it doesn't apply to corporate purchases) and has less to do with the manufacturer. The consumer can take the goods back to the shop and rightly demand they be fixed or replaced (shop's discretion) to the standard set out in the Act. It's then up to the shop to battle it out with the manufacturer.
As I said, this has worked very well for a long time, so there's no point in arguing that it's a dumb law. It isn't. It works. It keeps companies honest and reduces the need for extended warranties to practically nil. Extended warranties are little more than additional profit for companies anyway. America could learn a little from Australia and NZ on this (as well has healthcare, but let's not get into that here!).
I see Samsung has the same 6 month warranty on mobile phone batteries in New Zealand as in Australia.
http://www.samsung.com/nz/support/warranty/warrantyInformation.do?page=POLICY.WARRANTY
That should mean that Apple don't have to honour any battery issues after six months, so what was that about "flushing Applecare"?
Warranty issues would be handled by the place of purchase.
Vodafone Australia has been offering 2 year warranties on iPhones since 2010.
I see Samsung has the same 6 month warranty on mobile phone batteries in New Zealand.
http://www.samsung.com/nz/support/warranty/warrantyInformation.do?page=POLICY.WARRANTY
That should mean that Apple shouldn't have to honour any battery issues after six months.
Well, to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right (i.e. just 'cause Samsung does it doesn't mean Apple can too). Having said that, batteries are like ink in a pen; they get used up/wear out/can't last indefinitely. But I'd suggest that based on the expectation that goods last a 'reasonable' length of time, as defined in the NZ Consumer Guarantees Act, 6 months is probably too short.
Well, to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right (i.e. just 'cause Samsung does it doesn't mean Apple can too). Having said that, batteries are like ink in a pen; they get used up/wear out/can't last indefinitely. But I'd suggest that based on the expectation that goods last a 'reasonable' length of time, as defined in the NZ Consumer Guarantees Act, 6 months is probably too short.
You'll find other phone manufacturers, such as Nokia also offer 6 month warranties on batteries.
Apple is in the minority by offering longer.
iOS7 seems very popular with the younger demographic.
In another thread, I said this a couple of times. I have tried to give them some slack, but not too much!
They have legal representation in NZ, you can lodge a CGA claim against them for Apple.
They have legal representation in NZ, you can lodge a CGA claim against them for Apple.
That is an inherently complex, and potentially costly, process; nothing like as simple as walking into the shop where you bought the goods and demanding your rights under the CGA. While of course Apple is supposed to play by NZ's rules, and if you have the time and money you can force them to, it is simply out of reach for many. I sincerely hope that someone has the wherewithal to bring a test case and thus compel Apple to concede that NZ law trumps their APP extended warranties.
That is an inherently complex, and potentially costly, process; nothing like as simple as walking into the shop where you bought the goods and demanding your rights under the CGA. While of course Apple is supposed to play by NZ's rules, and if you have the time and money you can force them to, it is simply out of reach for many. I sincerely hope that someone has the wherewithal to bring a test case and thus compel Apple to concede that NZ law trumps their APP extended warranties.
Wouldn't it be up to the place of purchase to handle warranty issues on behalf of Apple or other companies that don't have a presence?
In Australia we can perform retail swaps of iPhones in phone stores, some other manufacturers have followed Apple's lead in this, otherwise it's off to a repair centre for assessment and repair.
As I stated before Vodafone Australia has offered a two year warranty since 2010.
Only Apple and Samsung have their own retail stores and the Samsung experience stores send handsets out for repair.
Wouldn't it be up to the place of purchase to handle warranty issues on behalf of Apple or other companies that don't have a presence?
In Australia we can perform retail swaps of iPhones in phone stores, some other manufacturers have followed Apple's lead in this, otherwise it's off to a repair centre for assessment and repair.
As I stated before Vodafone Australia has offered a two year warranty since 2010.
Only Apple and Samsung have their own retail stores and the Samsung experience stores send handsets out for repair.
You're exactly right - it is the place of purchase's responsibility to handle this. I think I mentioned this in my original post. There are two problems with this though. 1) Apple puts huge pressure on sellers to play by 'their' rules. If the seller rocks the boat too much, the loose certain rights to things Apple provides (and ultimately the ability to even sell Apple products). So sellers can be very difficult to persuade to respect the CGA. 2) More and more people are buying directly from Apple via the web, so there is *no* 'place of purchase'. Without Apple having a physical presence here in NZ, we're between a rock and a hard place.
Well you can do that, assuming you purchased your Apple device at a store. If you purchased the Apple device via the apple.co.nz online store, and you wish to lodge a CGA claim again them, you would need to do this via their legal representation.
So in saying this, if you are purchasing a non bto Apple item in NZ, you are probably best to purchase it from a reseller.
I think that companies should be able to offer different lengths of warranty for different kinds or quality of products. For example a 2013 Mac Pro could come with a 3 year warranty, but a Mac Mini could come with a one year warranty. When jurisdictions pass blanket rules that everything must come with e.g. a 2-year warranty, no matter what, that strikes me as an overly broad/unthinking approach to lawmaking.
Really, if there was no law about minimum guarantees, people would have nothing to go on but the brand name, and that would be to the benefit of companies like Apple. These thousands of no-name Chinese manufacturers would find their sales declining too I suspect.