This is probably why products cost so much more in England and the continent than they do here.
Nothing is for free. Somehow, that, what amounts to an extended warrantee, has to be paid for by the consumer.
So everyone is paying more for their product so that a few will get it fixed or replaced for free years later.
That's another hidden tax you have to pay.
Not at all. Taking Apple as a specific example, the additional amount we pay for Macs compared to US prices is a lot, lot less than AppleCare costs.
The majority of the public appear utterly ignorant of their rights, and on top of that, once you're outside the manufacturer's warranty, if you desire a refund/repair/replacement under the Act, you have to prove that any fault that developed was the result of a design or manufacturing flaw (as opposed to misuse or reasonable wear and tear), which is very difficult to do.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with the design or manufacturing of the iPod, but there is something wrong with how Apple handled this. They should have considered the PR repercussions of this.
At first, I thought that It was said that Apple was trying to silence them from saying that the phone had caught fire, exploded, or whatever actually happened.
That, I thought, was not good.
But it seems that Apple is merely having a standard agreement about not discussing the terms of the settlement. That's something else entirely.
Not at all. Taking Apple as a specific example, the additional amount we pay for Macs compared to US prices is a lot, lot less than AppleCare costs.
The majority of the public appear utterly ignorant of their rights, and on top of that, once you're outside the manufacturer's warranty, if you desire a refund/repair/replacement under the Act, you have to prove that any fault that developed was the result of a design or manufacturing flaw (as opposed to misuse or reasonable wear and tear), which is very difficult to do.
I have to disagree with you there. Applecare offers more than what you said the government requires, except for the length of time.
When we spoke to the head of admissions to Janet's school there for advice about buying a computer and other items, she told us that electronics and many other products were much more expensive there. I believe it from what I saw on our trip. The same thing is true in most places in Europe from what people who I know from there tell me.
Companies can't afford to give extended warrantees away for free. If the government requires that they cover their products for a longer time, even in the limited way they do there, the consumer is going to pay for it.
I've had guys from Germany working for me on machines brought from Europe. They said that they bought their German products here, whenever possible, because prices were cheaper. I'm not surprised.
People are always complaining that Apple's products cost more there, and they can't find a reason why after VAT and other duties are subtracted. They blame Apple's greed. Its not. It's the government requiring Apple to extend their warrantee another several years.
Even though it may be difficult to do, the manufacturer must cover possible warrantee claims. That's the way it works. That's also why we have class action suits here, because it can be too difficult for one person to pay for proof.
This is probably why products cost so much more in England and the continent than they do here.
Nothing is for free. Somehow, that, what amounts to an extended warrantee, has to be paid for by the consumer.
So everyone is paying more for their product so that a few will get it fixed or replaced for free years later.
That's another hidden tax you have to pay.
We have similar legislation in australia. Except there's no six year limit and Our cost of living isn't so bad. It's based on reasonable expectations of product life given the type of item, its cost and other factors. This law recognizes that if you buy a $5000 tv for instance you won't be on your own if it blows up six weeks out of a 12 month "warranty".
It's hardly a tax and it's silly to try and characterise it as such. Companies all work within a regulatory framework and we don't see complaints that adhering to environmental legislation is a "tax".
The trouble began when Liverpool's Ken Stanborough dropped his 11-year-old daughter's iPod touch. The device hissed, then popped and allegedly shot 10 feet into the air.
Sounds like they got the James Bond, "Now do pay attentions, 007"Q version iPod Touch...
Glad nobody hurt, and makes one wonder the true statistics if Apple keeps requesting exemption from the FOI act
We have similar legislation in australia. Except there's no six year limit and Our cost of living isn't so bad. It's based on reasonable expectations of product life given the type of item, its cost and other factors. This law recognizes that if you buy a $5000 tv for instance you won't be on your own if it blows up six weeks out of a 12 month "warranty".
It's hardly a tax and it's silly to try and characterise it as such. Companies all work within a regulatory framework and we don't see complaints that adhering to environmental legislation is a "tax".
Of course it's a tax. It's a hidden tax, because the companies are forced to add that cost to the price of the product.
I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, as long as everyone knows they're paying extra for it.
It's the idea some seem to have that this is somehow "free", and so it's better than the way we do it here.
And if you have to prove that it's a design, or faulty part, as Mr. H says they must do in England, it may very well be a useless tax for most people. Particularly for those who don't need it.
Of course, you can call it insurance if you like, but it's still a forced policy.
Companies can't afford to give extended warrantees away for free.
I think the idea behind the legislation is to encourage retailers to stock only reliable products, rather than cheap tat that will break after 5 minutes (the Act applies between consumer and retailer, not consumer and manufacturer). If there were strict consumer laws (like this but with more teeth; less onus on the consumer to prove design/manufacturing flaw, just require them to demonstrate the product has been treated properly) worldwide, that would force manufacturers to produce more reliable products, which would be a good thing environmentally. Yes, products would cost more but they'd have to be replaced less often.
I think the idea behind the legislation is to encourage retailers to stock only reliable products, rather than cheap tat that will break after 5 minutes (the Act applies between consumer and retailer, not consumer and manufacturer). If there were strict consumer laws (like this but with more teeth; less onus on the consumer to prove design/manufacturing flaw, just require them to demonstrate the product has been treated properly) worldwide, that would force manufacturers to produce more reliable products, which would be a good thing environmentally. Yes, products would cost more but they'd have to be replaced less often.
I understand what you're saying, but manufacturers will have to pony up anyway. It will always come back to them. And then retailers will have to charge more for the cost of doing the paperwork.
No matter how you look at it, it raises costs, and not by a few pennies either. It could be 2% or 5%, or whatever.
Stores will want to sell whatever is most popular. Prices will just go up.
Most products don't break within a reasonable time period anyway, other that portable ones, because they get banged around a lot without the owners realizing it.
Of course it's a tax. It's a hidden tax, because the companies are forced to add that cost to the price of the product.
I'm just suggesting that is is flawed logic - as I said in my post if that was the case then everything a company had to do to meet any regulatory framework is a 'tax'. It is not. It is a cost of doing business, just like meeting reporting requirements, environmental laws, planning laws, and every other law that governs the conduct of business. Yes, part of the cost model. No, not a tax.
Quote:
And if you have to prove that it's a design, or faulty part, as Mr. H says they must do in England, it may very well be a useless tax for most people. Particularly for those who don't need it.
You're not going to be covered for hurling something around the neighborhood, but if the device is clearly designed for portable use, then it is arguable that some element of robustness is called for. FWIW, I gave my son my iPod touch after buying an iPhone and it has proven remarkably robust. Three year olds can sometimes forget they're holding things. Cosmetically however, another story. I won't be writing to Apple to have that sorted, but I did approach Dell about a portable DVD drive that failed out of "warranty" (I had used it a handful of times) and it was replaced for me.
We have similar legislation in australia. Except there's no six year limit and Our cost of living isn't so bad. It's based on reasonable expectations of product life given the type of item, its cost and other factors. This law recognizes that if you buy a $5000 tv for instance you won't be on your own if it blows up six weeks out of a 12 month "warranty".
The US prefers to do this as a matter of consumers' choosing (e.g., I can choose to buy an AppleCare Protection Plan by trading off against the expected payoff given probability of failure), rather than as imposed regulation.
Many purchases made by credit cards are automatically covered by the extended warranty protection offered by credit card companies that typically double the length of coverage. For instance, my tween's Palm Centro conked out two months after ATT's warranty on it expired, but American Express sent me a check immediately - all it took was a five-minute phone call.
Hah I bet the potatoes were hissing in the kitchen and he thought it was the iPod. Then, unaware, he threw it out into his burning barbecue which caused the battery to explode.
The US prefers to do this as a matter of consumers' choosing (e.g., I can choose to buy an AppleCare Protection Plan by trading off against the expected payoff given probability of failure), rather than as imposed regulation.
To take the Apple specific case, they still try and impose the same 90 days 12mo policy which may work in the US here. I am not sure it has been tested, but if is something breaks within the manufacturer's warranty or the statutory warranty there should be no compulsion to pay for the conversation that gets the problem fixed as you do if you've used your 1 free support call (in the iPod case) and you don't live near one of the three Apple stores that exist in an area the size of the United States.
In my mind, if you pay good money for an item then you should expect it to last a good amount of time. I am the product of my environment and that's where influences lay but it is logically consistent despite any laws in place to enforce it.
Companies can't afford to give extended warrantees away for free. If the government requires that they cover their products for a longer time, even in the limited way they do there, the consumer is going to pay for it.
...
People are always complaining that Apple's products cost more there, and they can't find a reason why after VAT and other duties are subtracted. They blame Apple's greed. Its not. It's the government requiring Apple to extend their warrantee another several years.
That would make sense if Apple products cost more in Sweden (part of the EU) than Norway (not part of the EU), but they don't.
No, the main reasons for Apple's higher prices are the general high cost of doing business in Europe (more holidays for staff, higher taxes, higher minimum wages, etc.) and their desire to protect themselves against large $:€ exchange rate fluctuations.
I was recently hit by a texting fool that ran a red light. The insurance settlement required the same NDA clause before they would send the check. This is a standard clause that you will find as well as the clause that states that once you receive the monies you give up the right to future demands.
At first, I thought that It was said that Apple was trying to silence them from saying that the phone had caught fire, exploded, or whatever actually happened.
That, I thought, was not good.
But it seems that Apple is merely having a standard agreement about not discussing the terms of the settlement. That's something else entirely.
Exactly, and the Terms of these types of settlements from Apple are that you can't discuss what happened to the product or what Apple did to correct the situation or that there was a settlement at all. So, your first statement is actually correct.
Comments
What spelling? "Behaviour"? It's British. Us Americans are the strange ones...
It's "We Americans,".
This is probably why products cost so much more in England and the continent than they do here.
Nothing is for free. Somehow, that, what amounts to an extended warrantee, has to be paid for by the consumer.
So everyone is paying more for their product so that a few will get it fixed or replaced for free years later.
That's another hidden tax you have to pay.
Not at all. Taking Apple as a specific example, the additional amount we pay for Macs compared to US prices is a lot, lot less than AppleCare costs.
The majority of the public appear utterly ignorant of their rights, and on top of that, once you're outside the manufacturer's warranty, if you desire a refund/repair/replacement under the Act, you have to prove that any fault that developed was the result of a design or manufacturing flaw (as opposed to misuse or reasonable wear and tear), which is very difficult to do.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with the design or manufacturing of the iPod, but there is something wrong with how Apple handled this. They should have considered the PR repercussions of this.
At first, I thought that It was said that Apple was trying to silence them from saying that the phone had caught fire, exploded, or whatever actually happened.
That, I thought, was not good.
But it seems that Apple is merely having a standard agreement about not discussing the terms of the settlement. That's something else entirely.
Not at all. Taking Apple as a specific example, the additional amount we pay for Macs compared to US prices is a lot, lot less than AppleCare costs.
The majority of the public appear utterly ignorant of their rights, and on top of that, once you're outside the manufacturer's warranty, if you desire a refund/repair/replacement under the Act, you have to prove that any fault that developed was the result of a design or manufacturing flaw (as opposed to misuse or reasonable wear and tear), which is very difficult to do.
I have to disagree with you there. Applecare offers more than what you said the government requires, except for the length of time.
When we spoke to the head of admissions to Janet's school there for advice about buying a computer and other items, she told us that electronics and many other products were much more expensive there. I believe it from what I saw on our trip. The same thing is true in most places in Europe from what people who I know from there tell me.
Companies can't afford to give extended warrantees away for free. If the government requires that they cover their products for a longer time, even in the limited way they do there, the consumer is going to pay for it.
I've had guys from Germany working for me on machines brought from Europe. They said that they bought their German products here, whenever possible, because prices were cheaper. I'm not surprised.
People are always complaining that Apple's products cost more there, and they can't find a reason why after VAT and other duties are subtracted. They blame Apple's greed. Its not. It's the government requiring Apple to extend their warrantee another several years.
Even though it may be difficult to do, the manufacturer must cover possible warrantee claims. That's the way it works. That's also why we have class action suits here, because it can be too difficult for one person to pay for proof.
What spelling? "Behaviour"? It's British. Us Americans are the strange ones...
Look again.
Yes, because as we know, Apple has spies everywhere.
I could tell you more, but I'd have to shoot you.
Ha ha. Funny.
But I guess no one babbles to the press, esp. about Apple........
It's "We Americans,".
But when used with the qualifier 'strange ones'....
This is probably why products cost so much more in England and the continent than they do here.
Nothing is for free. Somehow, that, what amounts to an extended warrantee, has to be paid for by the consumer.
So everyone is paying more for their product so that a few will get it fixed or replaced for free years later.
That's another hidden tax you have to pay.
We have similar legislation in australia. Except there's no six year limit and Our cost of living isn't so bad. It's based on reasonable expectations of product life given the type of item, its cost and other factors. This law recognizes that if you buy a $5000 tv for instance you won't be on your own if it blows up six weeks out of a 12 month "warranty".
It's hardly a tax and it's silly to try and characterise it as such. Companies all work within a regulatory framework and we don't see complaints that adhering to environmental legislation is a "tax".
The trouble began when Liverpool's Ken Stanborough dropped his 11-year-old daughter's iPod touch. The device hissed, then popped and allegedly shot 10 feet into the air.
Sounds like they got the James Bond, "Now do pay attentions, 007" Q version iPod Touch...
Glad nobody hurt, and makes one wonder the true statistics if Apple keeps requesting exemption from the FOI act
We have similar legislation in australia. Except there's no six year limit and Our cost of living isn't so bad. It's based on reasonable expectations of product life given the type of item, its cost and other factors. This law recognizes that if you buy a $5000 tv for instance you won't be on your own if it blows up six weeks out of a 12 month "warranty".
It's hardly a tax and it's silly to try and characterise it as such. Companies all work within a regulatory framework and we don't see complaints that adhering to environmental legislation is a "tax".
Of course it's a tax. It's a hidden tax, because the companies are forced to add that cost to the price of the product.
I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, as long as everyone knows they're paying extra for it.
It's the idea some seem to have that this is somehow "free", and so it's better than the way we do it here.
And if you have to prove that it's a design, or faulty part, as Mr. H says they must do in England, it may very well be a useless tax for most people. Particularly for those who don't need it.
Of course, you can call it insurance if you like, but it's still a forced policy.
Companies can't afford to give extended warrantees away for free.
I think the idea behind the legislation is to encourage retailers to stock only reliable products, rather than cheap tat that will break after 5 minutes (the Act applies between consumer and retailer, not consumer and manufacturer). If there were strict consumer laws (like this but with more teeth; less onus on the consumer to prove design/manufacturing flaw, just require them to demonstrate the product has been treated properly) worldwide, that would force manufacturers to produce more reliable products, which would be a good thing environmentally. Yes, products would cost more but they'd have to be replaced less often.
I think the idea behind the legislation is to encourage retailers to stock only reliable products, rather than cheap tat that will break after 5 minutes (the Act applies between consumer and retailer, not consumer and manufacturer). If there were strict consumer laws (like this but with more teeth; less onus on the consumer to prove design/manufacturing flaw, just require them to demonstrate the product has been treated properly) worldwide, that would force manufacturers to produce more reliable products, which would be a good thing environmentally. Yes, products would cost more but they'd have to be replaced less often.
I understand what you're saying, but manufacturers will have to pony up anyway. It will always come back to them. And then retailers will have to charge more for the cost of doing the paperwork.
No matter how you look at it, it raises costs, and not by a few pennies either. It could be 2% or 5%, or whatever.
Stores will want to sell whatever is most popular. Prices will just go up.
Most products don't break within a reasonable time period anyway, other that portable ones, because they get banged around a lot without the owners realizing it.
Of course it's a tax. It's a hidden tax, because the companies are forced to add that cost to the price of the product.
I'm just suggesting that is is flawed logic - as I said in my post if that was the case then everything a company had to do to meet any regulatory framework is a 'tax'. It is not. It is a cost of doing business, just like meeting reporting requirements, environmental laws, planning laws, and every other law that governs the conduct of business. Yes, part of the cost model. No, not a tax.
And if you have to prove that it's a design, or faulty part, as Mr. H says they must do in England, it may very well be a useless tax for most people. Particularly for those who don't need it.
You're not going to be covered for hurling something around the neighborhood, but if the device is clearly designed for portable use, then it is arguable that some element of robustness is called for. FWIW, I gave my son my iPod touch after buying an iPhone and it has proven remarkably robust. Three year olds can sometimes forget they're holding things. Cosmetically however, another story. I won't be writing to Apple to have that sorted, but I did approach Dell about a portable DVD drive that failed out of "warranty" (I had used it a handful of times) and it was replaced for me.
We have similar legislation in australia. Except there's no six year limit and Our cost of living isn't so bad. It's based on reasonable expectations of product life given the type of item, its cost and other factors. This law recognizes that if you buy a $5000 tv for instance you won't be on your own if it blows up six weeks out of a 12 month "warranty".
The US prefers to do this as a matter of consumers' choosing (e.g., I can choose to buy an AppleCare Protection Plan by trading off against the expected payoff given probability of failure), rather than as imposed regulation.
Many purchases made by credit cards are automatically covered by the extended warranty protection offered by credit card companies that typically double the length of coverage. For instance, my tween's Palm Centro conked out two months after ATT's warranty on it expired, but American Express sent me a check immediately - all it took was a five-minute phone call.
The US prefers to do this as a matter of consumers' choosing (e.g., I can choose to buy an AppleCare Protection Plan by trading off against the expected payoff given probability of failure), rather than as imposed regulation.
To take the Apple specific case, they still try and impose the same 90 days 12mo policy which may work in the US here. I am not sure it has been tested, but if is something breaks within the manufacturer's warranty or the statutory warranty there should be no compulsion to pay for the conversation that gets the problem fixed as you do if you've used your 1 free support call (in the iPod case) and you don't live near one of the three Apple stores that exist in an area the size of the United States.
In my mind, if you pay good money for an item then you should expect it to last a good amount of time. I am the product of my environment and that's where influences lay but it is logically consistent despite any laws in place to enforce it.
Companies can't afford to give extended warrantees away for free. If the government requires that they cover their products for a longer time, even in the limited way they do there, the consumer is going to pay for it.
...
People are always complaining that Apple's products cost more there, and they can't find a reason why after VAT and other duties are subtracted. They blame Apple's greed. Its not. It's the government requiring Apple to extend their warrantee another several years.
That would make sense if Apple products cost more in Sweden (part of the EU) than Norway (not part of the EU), but they don't.
No, the main reasons for Apple's higher prices are the general high cost of doing business in Europe (more holidays for staff, higher taxes, higher minimum wages, etc.) and their desire to protect themselves against large $:€ exchange rate fluctuations.
At first, I thought that It was said that Apple was trying to silence them from saying that the phone had caught fire, exploded, or whatever actually happened.
That, I thought, was not good.
But it seems that Apple is merely having a standard agreement about not discussing the terms of the settlement. That's something else entirely.
Exactly, and the Terms of these types of settlements from Apple are that you can't discuss what happened to the product or what Apple did to correct the situation or that there was a settlement at all. So, your first statement is actually correct.