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.
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.
Yes, companies must raise prices if required to meet regulatory requirements. but many of those "costs" aren't actual costs to them, though some are. They are still hidden taxes. Anything that a government requires out of an industry that increases costs to the consumer is a tax.
This is just another one that we don't have here.
Quote:
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.
Companies shouldn't be responsible for poor behavior on the part of their customers.
But the better companies at least, do provide after warrantee returns once they know that there is a product failure of their own making. It may take some convincing. But Apple has done that a number of times over the years when they found out that a product had a bad design, or faulty parts. But often, people bring products in when they've been abused, and then expect a speedy and free repair. i had that with a friend of mine. That was fun.
Wrong on several counts. It isn't European Union legislation, it's the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which is UK legislation. You're probably confused by the fact that recent EU legislation has laid down that if a product fails within 6 months of purchase, there is no onus on the user to prove that device failure was due to a design or manufacturing flaw. I haven't read the legislation, but presumably there is some protection for retailers from consumers trying to get refunds for products that they've abused.
Anyway, the 1979 Act gives consumers the right to demand a refund, repair or replacement (whichever is most "reasonable") for defective products, up to six years from the original purchase date. The Act makes frequent reference to reasonableness. Depending upon the circumstances under which a product is dropped, it may not be reasonable to expect that product to still work, and you'd have a hell of a time proving that the product had failed due to a design or manufacturing fault rather than because you had dropped it.
Not quite, Mr H.
It's a tricky area of law. Essentially, all goods should be of 'satisfactory quality' and last a 'reasonable period of time'. The manufacturer's liability is limited toup to 6 years (5 in Scotland). So, a piece of fruit would be expected to last (say) a week, and an oil filter, maybe a year. In the first 6 months you can demand a refund. After this the shop can offer a refund, repair or replacement at their discretion. After 6 months the onus is on the customer to demonstrate the fault wasn't caused by carelessness and was a genuine fault.
Complicating things further, the EU Product Warranty Directive says consumers can demand either a [...] repair or replacement up to two years from date of purchase but this is not widely known and you'll probably have a fight on your hands [...].
It's a tricky area of law. Essentially, all goods should be of 'satisfactory quality' and last a 'reasonable period of time'. This is defined as up to 6 years (5 in Scotland). So, a piece of fruit would be expected to last (say) a week, and an oil filter, maybe a year. In the first 6 months you can demand a refund. After this the shop can offer a refund, repair or replacement at their discretion.
Complicating things further, the EU Product Warranty Directive says consumers can demand either a refund or replacement up to two years from date of purchase but this is not widely known and you'll probably have a fight on your hands getting your money back after 6 months.
To be fair, most American companies do practice this tactic to some extend. But Apple is the worst of the lot.
And you know this how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
I'm glad a few people have kept their heads over this story. I've seen it reported on three sites over the last couple of days and very few people even in the comments have got it right.
The fact that these incidents are so rare proves that the iPod is actually very well put together and safer than almost any consumer product out there. There are thousands of everyday products with failure rates orders of magnitude greater that even kill people from time to time but no one ever complains about that.
Also, as you say, the "gag order" is an industry standard and something the authors of the original article had to know. That means that the only reason the story has even spread is the deliberately slanted view they put on the story, presumably to sell papers (or views), and everyone who thinks worse of Apple after reading this tripe is just a fool.
These people wanted their 15 minutes of fame, which the media has been happy to deliver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Ha ha. Funny.
But I guess no one babbles to the press, esp. about Apple........
Well, that is what the agreement is supposed to prevent in practical reality. Not than anyone much cares about practical realities. To read the quotes of the people involved, you'd think if they muttered something about in their sleep 20 years from now, that men in black commando turnouts would leap through their windows and hogtie them.
What spelling? "Behaviour"? It's British. Us Americans are the strange ones...
Actually it was a typo. I typed "Bahviour" rather than "behaviour", and as a Brit long living in the US, I switch between US and UK spelling without really noticing now.
The fact that someone takes the time to respond to a type is amusing though. Some people have too much time on their hands...
Yes, companies must raise prices if required to meet regulatory requirements. but many of those "costs" aren't actual costs to them, though some are. They are still hidden taxes. Anything that a government requires out of an industry that increases costs to the consumer is a tax.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Tax has a specific meaning. What you're describing may sound nice in a populist sense but it definitely not a tax to my mind.
Quote:
Companies shouldn't be responsible for poor behavior on the part of their customers.
I would totally agree.
Quote:
But the better companies at least, do provide after warrantee returns once they know that there is a product failure of their own making. It may take some convincing. But Apple has done that a number of times over the years when they found out that a product had a bad design, or faulty parts. But often, people bring products in when they've been abused, and then expect a speedy and free repair. i had that with a friend of mine. That was fun.
That comes from a perspective that is different from mine. You think it nice, but in a lot of places, in the right circumstances, such behaviour is legally expected.
Actually it was a typo. I typed "Bahviour" rather than "behaviour", and as a Brit long living in the US, I switch between US and UK spelling without really noticing now.
The fact that someone takes the time to respond to a type is amusing though. Some people have too much time on their hands...
Actually, wasn't it that the family would keep quiet about the settlement, not about the incident?
Sensationalism by the Times?
It's not really a "settlement," it's more an agreement to keep your mouth shut about the whole ordeal. In return, Apple sends you a check for the full cost of the device (you have to produce a receipt) and pays to have the defective one returned to them. That's it.
Another unsubstantiated claim. I wouldn't have given them a lousy dime. Let them go to court to get it sorted out.
How do you know? Its unlikely Apple would have made the offer if this was a bogus claim. It's not like they do this for every broken iPod. They only do this when they've been able to substantiate the claim. I've been through this process myself.
It's not really a "settlement," it's more an agreement to keep your mouth shut about the whole ordeal. In return, Apple sends you a check for the full cost of the device (you have to produce a receipt) and pays to have the defective one returned to them. That's it.
It is a settlement, really -- if you agree not to press the matter further, which is why they want you to sign a document to that effect. That's why it's called a settlement.
It is a settlement, really -- if you agree not to press the matter further, which is why they want you to sign a document to that effect. That's why it's called a settlement.
Yes, you're right. I think when most people see "settlement" in legal terms, they equate it with one party giving another party a large sum of money to keep quiet. In Apple's case, you just get the original value of the device back, nothing more. Not sure why these people didn't accept the offer from Apple, no one was harmed and no property was damaged other than the iPod itself. Just take the new iPod and call it a day.
It's not really a "settlement," it's more an agreement to keep your mouth shut about the whole ordeal. In return, Apple sends you a check for the full cost of the device (you have to produce a receipt) and pays to have the defective one returned to them. That's it.
It was my understanding that he asked verbally for a refund without compensation. If so, Apple would be open to continuing suits if the plaintive did not sign of a letter of settlement.
Any company that would agree to refund the cost as per this situation, may in the eyes of some be construed as a possible admission of fault.
And not signing off the 'without compensation,' an action that could come back later to haunt them later:
This father claiming that the hissing from the iPod when his daughter dropped in down the stairs, triggered off a tantrum that caused him to throw the iPod at his daughter. Fortunately, he missed and it hit the driveway outside their home, only to explode half a minute later. The explosive missile, although it didn't hit his daughter, that so ensued, has left her with chronic nightmares and a reluctance to don another pair of earphones on which to hear her favorite music.
It is too bad he wasn't sitting on it when it went off. It could have resulted in severe brain damage.
Actually it was a typo. I typed "Bahviour" rather than "behaviour", and as a Brit long living in the US, I switch between US and UK spelling without really noticing now.
The fact that someone takes the time to respond to a type is amusing though. Some people have too much time on their hands...
Comments
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.
Have you seen one of these agreements?
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.
Yes, companies must raise prices if required to meet regulatory requirements. but many of those "costs" aren't actual costs to them, though some are. They are still hidden taxes. Anything that a government requires out of an industry that increases costs to the consumer is a tax.
This is just another one that we don't have here.
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.
Companies shouldn't be responsible for poor behavior on the part of their customers.
But the better companies at least, do provide after warrantee returns once they know that there is a product failure of their own making. It may take some convincing. But Apple has done that a number of times over the years when they found out that a product had a bad design, or faulty parts. But often, people bring products in when they've been abused, and then expect a speedy and free repair. i had that with a friend of mine. That was fun.
Wrong on several counts. It isn't European Union legislation, it's the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which is UK legislation. You're probably confused by the fact that recent EU legislation has laid down that if a product fails within 6 months of purchase, there is no onus on the user to prove that device failure was due to a design or manufacturing flaw. I haven't read the legislation, but presumably there is some protection for retailers from consumers trying to get refunds for products that they've abused.
Anyway, the 1979 Act gives consumers the right to demand a refund, repair or replacement (whichever is most "reasonable") for defective products, up to six years from the original purchase date. The Act makes frequent reference to reasonableness. Depending upon the circumstances under which a product is dropped, it may not be reasonable to expect that product to still work, and you'd have a hell of a time proving that the product had failed due to a design or manufacturing fault rather than because you had dropped it.
Not quite, Mr H.
It's a tricky area of law. Essentially, all goods should be of 'satisfactory quality' and last a 'reasonable period of time'. The manufacturer's liability is limited to up to 6 years (5 in Scotland). So, a piece of fruit would be expected to last (say) a week, and an oil filter, maybe a year. In the first 6 months you can demand a refund. After this the shop can offer a refund, repair or replacement at their discretion. After 6 months the onus is on the customer to demonstrate the fault wasn't caused by carelessness and was a genuine fault.
Complicating things further, the EU Product Warranty Directive says consumers can demand either a [...] repair or replacement up to two years from date of purchase but this is not widely known and you'll probably have a fight on your hands [...].
Edits in bold
What spelling? "Behaviour"? It's British. Us Americans are the strange ones...
You might want to look at the original spelling again...
bahviour does not equal behaviour.
Just goes to show you how the eyes can fool.
Not quite, Mr H.
It's a tricky area of law. Essentially, all goods should be of 'satisfactory quality' and last a 'reasonable period of time'. This is defined as up to 6 years (5 in Scotland). So, a piece of fruit would be expected to last (say) a week, and an oil filter, maybe a year. In the first 6 months you can demand a refund. After this the shop can offer a refund, repair or replacement at their discretion.
Complicating things further, the EU Product Warranty Directive says consumers can demand either a refund or replacement up to two years from date of purchase but this is not widely known and you'll probably have a fight on your hands getting your money back after 6 months.
Interesting, confusing, but interesting.
To be fair, most American companies do practice this tactic to some extend. But Apple is the worst of the lot.
And you know this how?
I'm glad a few people have kept their heads over this story. I've seen it reported on three sites over the last couple of days and very few people even in the comments have got it right.
The fact that these incidents are so rare proves that the iPod is actually very well put together and safer than almost any consumer product out there. There are thousands of everyday products with failure rates orders of magnitude greater that even kill people from time to time but no one ever complains about that.
Also, as you say, the "gag order" is an industry standard and something the authors of the original article had to know. That means that the only reason the story has even spread is the deliberately slanted view they put on the story, presumably to sell papers (or views), and everyone who thinks worse of Apple after reading this tripe is just a fool.
These people wanted their 15 minutes of fame, which the media has been happy to deliver.
Ha ha. Funny.
But I guess no one babbles to the press, esp. about Apple........
Well, that is what the agreement is supposed to prevent in practical reality. Not than anyone much cares about practical realities. To read the quotes of the people involved, you'd think if they muttered something about in their sleep 20 years from now, that men in black commando turnouts would leap through their windows and hogtie them.
What spelling? "Behaviour"? It's British. Us Americans are the strange ones...
Actually it was a typo. I typed "Bahviour" rather than "behaviour", and as a Brit long living in the US, I switch between US and UK spelling without really noticing now.
The fact that someone takes the time to respond to a type is amusing though. Some people have too much time on their hands...
Assuming there have been 1000 cases and 175 million iPods sold...
That is a 0.000006% chance your iPod will catch fire.
I'm also curious how many complaints the CPSC gets for all devices with Lithium-Ion batteries.
Its actually 100 times more likely than this (0.0006%), but your point is made!
Yes, companies must raise prices if required to meet regulatory requirements. but many of those "costs" aren't actual costs to them, though some are. They are still hidden taxes. Anything that a government requires out of an industry that increases costs to the consumer is a tax.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Tax has a specific meaning. What you're describing may sound nice in a populist sense but it definitely not a tax to my mind.
Companies shouldn't be responsible for poor behavior on the part of their customers.
I would totally agree.
But the better companies at least, do provide after warrantee returns once they know that there is a product failure of their own making. It may take some convincing. But Apple has done that a number of times over the years when they found out that a product had a bad design, or faulty parts. But often, people bring products in when they've been abused, and then expect a speedy and free repair. i had that with a friend of mine. That was fun.
That comes from a perspective that is different from mine. You think it nice, but in a lot of places, in the right circumstances, such behaviour is legally expected.
Actually it was a typo. I typed "Bahviour" rather than "behaviour", and as a Brit long living in the US, I switch between US and UK spelling without really noticing now.
The fact that someone takes the time to respond to a type is amusing though. Some people have too much time on their hands...
Or know how to use a built-n spell checker...
Apple reportedly offered a refund only if the family agreed to keep quiet -- an action that has since drawn criticism.
Actually, wasn't it that the family would keep quiet about the settlement, not about the incident?
Sensationalism by the Times?
Have you seen one of these agreements?
Yes, I have. See my post on page 1 (#33).
Actually, wasn't it that the family would keep quiet about the settlement, not about the incident?
Sensationalism by the Times?
It's not really a "settlement," it's more an agreement to keep your mouth shut about the whole ordeal. In return, Apple sends you a check for the full cost of the device (you have to produce a receipt) and pays to have the defective one returned to them. That's it.
Another unsubstantiated claim. I wouldn't have given them a lousy dime. Let them go to court to get it sorted out.
How do you know? Its unlikely Apple would have made the offer if this was a bogus claim. It's not like they do this for every broken iPod. They only do this when they've been able to substantiate the claim. I've been through this process myself.
in fact ill forget i even own an Ipod and carry on listening to music on my Iphone...
It's not really a "settlement," it's more an agreement to keep your mouth shut about the whole ordeal. In return, Apple sends you a check for the full cost of the device (you have to produce a receipt) and pays to have the defective one returned to them. That's it.
It is a settlement, really -- if you agree not to press the matter further, which is why they want you to sign a document to that effect. That's why it's called a settlement.
It is a settlement, really -- if you agree not to press the matter further, which is why they want you to sign a document to that effect. That's why it's called a settlement.
Yes, you're right. I think when most people see "settlement" in legal terms, they equate it with one party giving another party a large sum of money to keep quiet. In Apple's case, you just get the original value of the device back, nothing more. Not sure why these people didn't accept the offer from Apple, no one was harmed and no property was damaged other than the iPod itself. Just take the new iPod and call it a day.
It's not really a "settlement," it's more an agreement to keep your mouth shut about the whole ordeal. In return, Apple sends you a check for the full cost of the device (you have to produce a receipt) and pays to have the defective one returned to them. That's it.
It was my understanding that he asked verbally for a refund without compensation. If so, Apple would be open to continuing suits if the plaintive did not sign of a letter of settlement.
Any company that would agree to refund the cost as per this situation, may in the eyes of some be construed as a possible admission of fault.
And not signing off the 'without compensation,' an action that could come back later to haunt them later:
This father claiming that the hissing from the iPod when his daughter dropped in down the stairs, triggered off a tantrum that caused him to throw the iPod at his daughter. Fortunately, he missed and it hit the driveway outside their home, only to explode half a minute later. The explosive missile, although it didn't hit his daughter, that so ensued, has left her with chronic nightmares and a reluctance to don another pair of earphones on which to hear her favorite music.
It is too bad he wasn't sitting on it when it went off. It could have resulted in severe brain damage.
Actually it was a typo. I typed "Bahviour" rather than "behaviour", and as a Brit long living in the US, I switch between US and UK spelling without really noticing now.
The fact that someone takes the time to respond to a type is amusing though. Some people have too much time on their hands...
But you responded the response.