Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Revises Warranty Policies In Europe To Comply With EU Laws

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the adjusting-the-terms dept.

EU 156

ccguy writes "Apple revised its warranty policy in Italy last year after being hit with a €900,000 fine for not complying with an EU-mandated two-year term. The company has today revised the terms of its warranties in France, Germany and Belgium, specifying that customers are entitled to repairs and replacements of their Apple products for a full two years after purchase, and not just one as previously stated. No word yet on when the rest of the EU will see those changes, but it would now seem to be just a matter of time before other countries get the new terms as well."

cancel ×

156 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About time (-1, Offtopic)

John Doe (2938705) | about a year ago | (#43993423)

Someone needs to come up with some god damn frozen waffles that don't taste like garbage

Re:About time (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43993503)

Hmm... because "Belgium" is mentioned in TFS?

Re:About time (0)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43993587)

I don't think so, or else he would have known somebody already did come up with good frozen waffles, it's just that the somebody doesn't live in his own country.

Re:About time (2, Funny)

EdZ (755139) | about a year ago | (#43993639)

B*****m

Language!

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993895)

Semprini!

Actual Belgian here, and... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994125)

Nobody here would *ever* freeze waffles!
They are only good for about 15 minutes after preparation. (When they're still crispy.) Any older and no self-respecting Belgian would touch them with a pitchfork.

But I live in Luxemburg now (can't beat their worker protection laws and minimum wage height). Their waffles taste *even better*. But you only get them at fairs, street festivals, etc. They call them "Eisekuchen" (iron[-made] cakes).
Crispy like fries, tasty like our Belgian ones. (I think their secrets are greasing the thing with pork rinds or lard, and most importantly: Preparing the dough with *sparkling water*.)
Add powdered sugar on top... or strawberries and whipped cream... and IMO as a Belgian, you have the best waffles in the whole world!

Unfortunately their recipe is a well-kept secret. But for a reason.

Re:Actual Belgian here, and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994179)

Preparing the dough with *sparkling water*.

also works with pancakes !!

Re:Actual Belgian here, and... (0)

polar red (215081) | about a year ago | (#43994257)

>belgian waffles ?
which version ? Brusselse waffels? Gaufres liégeoises ? sugar ? vanilla? ...

Thats a problem for apple (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993441)

Their products only last a year, by then you would be two versions behind and obsolete.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993483)

That is interesting. Does that mean that the Reality Distortion Field is limited in time? Or does every new Apple product have its own RDF that can't overlap and if that is the case, why do the newer one have priority?

Re:Thats a problem for apple (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993647)

No he is right. I bought a mac pro in 2008. I hoped it would last 5 years, so than the price was okay. But ever yyear it would break down once or twice. And the applecare only lasted for 3 years. After 3 years they put in a new motherboard (new is relative, it was made in 2008), the nvidia blew it self up twice, after overheating. And the power supply broke down 3 times. Instead of putting in a new better one, the always put one in, that was build in 2008, even 3 years later. And the repairs only lasted for 6 months, than I could come back.

So now that mac pro is laying somewhere, and I won't ever buy another piece of shit hardware from apple ever again.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994141)

You are buying them wrong

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1, Offtopic)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993497)

I'm still using the iPhone 4 I bought in 2010, and am looking forward to the big iOS7 UI overhaul to take it through year 4. A relative of mine got an HTC Desire around the same time and you'd better believe he's not on that any more.

I've had household appliances that have gone obsolete more quickly.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993527)

If he'd root his device he could still use modern Android on it, at least version 4 or higher.

Try doing that with your iPhone when Apple bitchslaps you and drop iOS support for it.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993617)

He got sick of dealing with jailbreaks and went to several other phones before finally getting a Nexus this year, like he should've done in the first place. At any rate the Desire hasn't had a stable Cyanogen release since last June. Meanwhile I've got at least another 18 months left until iOS8 comes around and there's the possibility of obsolecence, and if my wife's original iPhone is any indication, two years after that before app incompatibility becomes a serious issue.

Half a decade isn't bad for a smartphone, you'll agree.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993665)

While it's nice and all, upgrades aren't mandatory or related to warranties on the hardware.

If the phone is still as capable as it was when sold then it's fine.

The problem was that a significant number (enough for the EU govenerment, AKA 27 goverments, to take notice) of Apple devices couldn't make it to the 2 year limit required by law.

You can spin it however you like but that fact remains.

Apple choose to ignore the law as they didn't want to support people after a year (speaks highly of their confidence in the hardware) and they got burnt.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993689)

That's not what this thread is about. Read the original post up top.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993807)

Oh, I thought that post was relevant to the subject in TFA. If the responses are off topic then so is the original post.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43994097)

Waay off topic.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993691)

While it's nice and all, upgrades aren't mandatory or related to warranties on the hardware.

If the phone is still as capable as it was when sold then it's fine.

It's not just a phone. It's a network connected computer and should not be used or at least not connected to any form of network if it's no longer supported and receives security updates.

The problem was that a significant number (enough for the EU govenerment, AKA 27 goverments, to take notice) of Apple devices couldn't make it to the 2 year limit required by law.

You can spin it however you like but that fact remains.

Apple choose to ignore the law as they didn't want to support people after a year (speaks highly of their confidence in the hardware) and they got burnt.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the problem was not that they don't support their hardware accordingly to the law, the problem was that they were not good enough at informing customers about it.

If they said it was supported for one year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993799)

Then why would you go to them after that year to ask them to fix it?

Ergo by lying to you about how long they will support their device for under warranty, they were ensuring you wouldn't ask for it to be supported under warranty.

Re:If they said it was supported for one year (1, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993937)

The problem is that Apple acts as both the manufacturer and the seller if you buy from Apple Store (online or retail). As a manufacturer Apple provides a one year warranty and still do so, that was never the issue. However as a seller Apple also is responsible for hardware defects, and this is something that they have to do for two years; but only if you actually bought from them. If you bought from a reseller then it's the reseller that has that responsibility. That responsibility is very limited in comparison to a traditional warranty and as a customer you essentially has to prove that the defect was the result of manufacturing. As a seller you are also responsible for explaining this to the customer. Apple did not explain this well enough to customers, and that was what the problem was all about.

Re:If they said it was supported for one year (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994059)

The problem is that Apple acts as both the manufacturer and the seller if you buy from Apple Store (online or retail). As a manufacturer Apple provides a one year warranty and still do so, that was never the issue.

Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.

However as a seller Apple also is responsible for hardware defects, and this is something that they have to do for two years; but only if you actually bought from them. If you bought from a reseller then it's the reseller that has that responsibility. That responsibility is very limited in comparison to a traditional warranty and as a customer you essentially has to prove that the defect was the result of manufacturing. As a seller you are also responsible for explaining this to the customer.

Wrong. A seller may provide an additional warranty beyond the legally required manufacturer's warranty. That in no way alters the manufacturer's duty under EU law to provide a 2 year warranty.

Apple did not explain this well enough to customers, and that was what the problem was all about.

Wrong. The problem was that Apple (the manufacturer) does not provide a manufacturer's warranty of 2 years as required by EU law. They insisted it should only be 1 year, in flagrant defiance of the EU laws. The fine they received was a minor wrist slap, but would probably have been repeated in heavier increments if their illegal stance had continued.

Re:If they said it was supported for one year (0)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43994153)

So, since Apple is a US based company and don't manufacture in the EU then I guess they don't have to provide any such warranty whatsoever. Or are you seriously suggesting that a US based manufacturer has to provide this warranty if a EU based retailer resells their products?

Re:If they said it was supported for one year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994229)

It's not that easy. Apple has quite a number of subsidiaries in Europe (wikipedia also states that it is a multinational coporation, not an US-based company).

And yes, in this case they have to follow EU law, just as a company that is registered in the EU, has a huge presentation in the US and is selling stuff in the US that they produced in the EU but imported themselves has to follow US law.

If they had no representation whatsoever - perhaps things would be different...

Re:If they said it was supported for one year (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43994213)

Whong. The EU law applies to manufacturers and requires them to provide a manufacturer's warranty for a "reasonable life" of the device. For computers and suchlike, that's 2 years according to the law.

Nonsense. It applies to sellers.

In the case of Apple, the manufacturer is a big and world wide known company. But in reality, most products are built by companies that you have never heard of, and that you would never be able to contact. If I go to the local supermarket and buy some electronic goods, made in China by god-knows-who, a manufacturer's warranty would be completely useless to me, because my chances of getting things fixed by a company somewhere in Shanghai are practically zero. Instead, I go to the seller, and they fix it.

Re:If they said it was supported for one year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994167)

Parent is informative? Bitch, please...

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994013)

Hey, I'm that AC,

To your point about not being connected if not receiving updates, tell that to Microsoft ;) For what it's worth I agree with your idealism, but again this has nothing to do with a hardware warranty.

You're not wrong on your second point, it is about Apple's adivce changing, the law has always been the law and has always been applicable. I can only site annecdotal evidence that by "not being good enough" customers would leave unsupported thinking they weren't covered. This was misleading and effectively the same as not supporting them.

Sure if you hired a lawyer you could get them to fix you phone in year 2, as per the law, but you shouldn't have to do that and here in the EU (UK here) we don't have the same lust for lawyers as seems to be the case in the States.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993693)

This is all in response to "Their products only last a year, by then you would be two versions behind and obsolete."

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#43993683)

If he'd root his device he could still use modern Android on it, at least version 4 or higher.

Try doing that with your iPhone when Apple bitchslaps you and drop iOS support for it.

Considering what these smartphones cost you'd think one could expect 4 years of OS updates without having to root/jailbreak the device. Say what you will about Apple and it's walled garden, they don't orphan devices often. With the iPhone line they have provided 3-4 years of OS updates. My mum uses an iPhone 3GS bought in 2009 that is only now, 4 years later, being dropped from Apple's official OS update list.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a year ago | (#43993531)

The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire). The fact that it's still working for you doesn't mean a thing. My mother-in-law still has a Galaxy S1, which does what she needs and is just a bit too slow for my tastes, though I'm a power user.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (3, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993585)

The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire).

How can something be obsolete after a few months if it's expected to be around for years?

The fact that it's still working for you doesn't mean a thing. My mother-in-law still has a Galaxy S1, which does what she needs and is just a bit too slow for my tastes, though I'm a power user.

Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates? Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?

Re:Thats a problem for apple (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#43993719)

The iPhone 4 was already obsolete when it came out, as the specs were on par with competing phones that had been released for months already (like, you guessed it, the Desire).

How can something be obsolete after a few months if it's expected to be around for years?

That's how people wit performance mania think, the cheesy car analogy would be: If you buy a Mercedes today and BMW comes out with a model tomorrow that has 16 more horsepowers your Mercedes is hopelessly obsolete and you have to upgrade ASAP.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43993741)

Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates?

No.

Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?

Yes.

You don't need Samsung to hold your hand to install the latest Android on a phone.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43993915)

Does Samsung still support the S1 with updates? Does it run the latest stable version of Android? Will it run the next major version of Android?

To a similar extent that Apple does, yes. Allow me to explain.

If you install iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 you don't get all the features. A lot of stuff just doesn't work, it needs certain hardware or a faster CPU or something.

Similarly with a Galaxy S you don't get all the latest Android features, you get a subset via updates to Google's apps. When they update Maps or Gmail you get those updates. You also get updates to Samsung apps, including their desktop suite (equivalent of iTunes).

So yes, the Galaxy S is still updated and still a damn good smartphone.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993953)

Thanks. That's a good explanation.

But just to be clear, is it just regular app updates or will for example the kernel be updated if a root exploit is found?

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43994149)

You're wholly dependent upon the forward compatibility of the underlying OS for those updated apps to be available, though.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43994227)

Just as an example here, the Galaxy S has Android 2.3 at best, assuming the carrier authorised it; that means that none of the APIs outlined here [android.com] are included, and apps which use those APIs (or which expect changes in behavior in existing APIs) may not operate properly. Given that most Android handsets are still on 2.x, develoeprs have wisely stepped carefully in implementing the 4.x APIs of course, but it will be an issue in future. (Current releases of many apps misbehave when running on the original iPhone for this reason.)

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43994295)

Or to put it another way, this is the list of features I don't get in iOS7. Everything else will be updated.

Panorama format is available on iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, and iPod touch (5th generation).
Filters in Camera are available on iPhone 5 and iPod touch (5th generation).*
AirDrop is available on iPhone 5, iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and iPod touch (5th generation)
Siri is available on iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad with Retina display, iPad mini, and iPod touch (5th generation) and requires Internet access.

*Filters in photos are included, but there's no live preview.

In iOS6, I'm missing turn by turn navigation and the swoopy 3D view from the maps application. I got everything else.

Meanwhile your Galaxy S got updates to Google's apps. I also get updates every time an app is updated, but I get the OS-level stuff too.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

polar red (215081) | about a year ago | (#43994155)

if it's expected to be around for years?

maybe the users think it should be. But apple wants users to buy as many as possible.
A way to achieve this is perceived obsolescence. --> apple releases as many new versions as it can get away with (so users are pushed to perceive their only one year old device as 'old').
(it isn't only apple that does it)

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993623)

I'm curious as to what all these other phones are. The Desire was on parity at best at a bit behind otherwise, and the Galaxy S didn't show up until later. I'm on the latest OS release, unlike your mother in law.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43993739)

I'm a software engineer and I still have a Galaxy S1 (running jelly bean).
It's fine, really.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a year ago | (#43993939)

The desire is an atrocious phone, barely usable with Cyanogen, clockwork or the native HTC sense. There is nothing about it comparable to the iphone 4, except possibly the camera (I will freely admit Apple were way behind the cameras but with the 4 they finally seemed to catch up).

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43993599)

Well, fine, but don't forget that many of the cool new features don't work on the iPhone 4. You are not much better off than someone who just gets new features via app updates for their older Android device.

My friend is still using his Galaxy S which is of about the same vintage as your iPhone, a bit older perhaps. Still gets feature updates, still happy with it.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993635)

I've got most of the new features; no voice navigation, Siri or panoramas but that's it. Being on the latest OS release for app compatability is the more important thing.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993653)

If a feature requires certain hardware or the hardware is not capable or powerful enough to support it then you just can't support that feature. There's no way around that. The iPhone 4 started out with iOS 4, and will be supported at least up until iOS 7. A lot has changed from iOS 4 to iOS 7, and it's honorable that Apple has supported it so well. Of course some features may not be supported, but that list is very short and most items on it has a good reason for being there.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993677)

Pretty sure turn-by-turn and Siri were just them looking to give the newer products a selling point, though.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about a year ago | (#43993943)

Bug fixes mean nothing to you? You can't be running a stock Android from one of the manufacturers if that's the case.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993829)

I'm still using the iPhone 4 I bought in 2010, and am looking forward to the big iOS7 UI overhaul to take it through year 4. A relative of mine

Still? I'm still using my Nokia from 96 or thereabouts. Works fine, not with the original battare though.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994005)

I'm still using the iPhone 4 I bought in 2010, and am looking forward to the big iOS7 UI overhaul to take it through year 4. A relative of mine got an HTC Desire around the same time and you'd better believe he's not on that any more.

I've had household appliances that have gone obsolete more quickly.

Hey do I know you?

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43993499)

Apple products last pretty long. The main problem is that Apple tried to sell the overpriced extra 1-year warranty extension. Having a two years warranty, people are less likely to purchase that extra.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993507)

I'm not totally familiar with the law in Italy, but if it follows the same type of law that is common in the EU then it is not warranty per se. It usually means that if something breaks the vendor has the responsibility to fix it _or_ prove that the problem was not caused by the vendor. That is very different from how most warranties work.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (3, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#43994041)

Yes, because it's not a warranty.

It runs like this: For two years, the vendor (not the manufacturer) has to warrant that the sold object keeps running except for normal tear and wear and the usual refills. The problem is that within the two years, the buyer can misuse the object in a way which causes the object to break preliminary. Thus there arises the necessity to determine who is responsible if the sold object breaks. The law states, that within the first six month, it's assumed that the fault causing the preliminary break was already present at the time of the sale, except proved otherwise (thus the vendor has to prove that the buyer mistreated the object). Within the remaining 18 month, it is assumed that the buyer mistreated the object, thus the buyer has to prove that the object was faulty at the time of the sale.

If the responsibility of the preliminary defect is put to the vendor (either by default within the first six month, or by proof of the buyer), the sale can be reversed, thus either the vendor hands back the money, or replaces the defective object with another one. The vendor still can ask for a repair attempt, but it's up to the buyer to agree.

Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".

Re:Thats a problem for apple (3, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43994283)

Apple did offer a warranty that covers some of the above mentioned cases for additional money. This is not illegal. It was illegal not to tell the customer about the rights he had anyway and to make the impression that only with the extended warranty, the customer was entitled to those rights. This was considered a "culpa in contrahendo".

That's exactly correct, but unfortunately much too complicated for most people who can't string two thoughts together in a straight line, and are just incapable of describing a legal situation correctly without muddling everything up.

So the problem in Italy was: When you sell products, you don't usually have to tell people all about their rights; they are supposed to figure that out themselves. BUT if you sell extended warranties, or insurance, or similar things, then you have to tell people exactly what they are getting for their money. And to tell them exactly what they are getting, you must tell them what rights they would have without extended warranty or insurance, what rights they would have with extended warranty or insurance, and what they get for their money is the difference. (Actually, what they get is slightly more; AppleCare will fix problems if the seller goes bankrupt, if you move to a different country, or if the seller is some bastard who won't fix the problem without going to court, even though they legally have to).

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43994049)

It's worth pointing out though that most judges will side with the consumer if the item has not been obviously abused or mis-used. A recent example is a company selling leather sofas in the UK. They claimed that certain common hair care products could damage the leather, but since a reasonable person would expect their sofa to cope with those it became the vendor's problem and they had to fix it.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993501)

Glued rechargeable battery (aka not user serviceable) have an expected life time of 2 years: account an average of 6 month from factory to customer,and to keep the market not noticing that issue, Apple need to change the top-selling apparatus at least every year.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993517)

They're not glued, the lifespan is more than 2 years, and nothing takes 6 months to get from factory to consumer in the mobile phone business.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993567)

So if they are not glued then why are they not offering battery replacement?

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993593)

So if they are not glued then why are they not offering battery replacement?

They offer battery replacement [apple.com]

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993601)

It's quicker to hand you a phone that's had its battery replaced already, than have you wait while they swap the battery out. I hear that they're going to switch over to while-you-wait though, it's a really trivial job on the 4 and 4S, and if you don't bother unplugging the display it's even quicker on the 5.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994025)

Nice, I am glad they are doing something for you Apple guys. Ive watched a number of friends carrying around auxiliary plug in batteries due to the primary one not being able to hold a charge for very long.

I can change the battery in my phone whenever I please, in fact the dock came with an extra battery to swap in. FYI thats the Samsung Charge.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (0)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43994109)

Swappable batteries are the way and the light, but unfortunately these days that comes down to choosing a low- to mid-end phone or one with a fixed battery.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43993843)

Battery life depends on how you use the device. Some people will stay on the same battery for a few years, others can wear theirs out in one. For example li-po cells have a limited number of recharge cycles which is extended if you charge them slowly and rarely drop below 50%.

I replaced by GS3 battery last month. The old one was mostly fine but I found that if I pushed it hard during the day it would need a top-up by late evening, so I shelled out all of £8 for a genuine replacement. I wouldn't want to give that ability up.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Freultwah (739055) | about a year ago | (#43993511)

The opposite is true. I am still using my MacBook Pro 3,1 from October 2007 and while it does show some wear and tear, it is still going strong. A friend's PowerBook is still alive and well and in use, although it's true that his options are limited to OS X 10.5. They age well both physically and morally and after the Intel transition, even the 5+ year old models are still up to the tasks of today.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

gutnor (872759) | about a year ago | (#43993655)

This is what I noticed about people buying Apple products. Unlike the common stereotype here on slashdot (fanboy changing their stuff every time Apple makes a keynote) they are mostly people that will keep their hardware for a few years. The only people I have seen changing more often are iPhone contract users, but the replacements are pushed by mobile networks.

Re:Thats a problem for apple (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43993551)

Their products only last a year, by then you would be two versions behind and obsolete.

That's a good thing. If they have to replace yours under warranty you might get a newer model.

Once again, misleading summary (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43993519)

The article, as many articles before, confuses "manufacturer's warranty", which is unchanged, and "legal rights against the seller". Apple as the manufacturer can give any manufacturer warranty they like in the EU, and they give the same warranty as any other manufacturer. The seller, that is the shop that sold the goods, whoever that seller is, has legal obligations to make sure the product works for a reasonable time.

The only thing that has changed is that Apple makes more clear on the page where they explain their one year manufacturer's warranty, that you have other rights against the seller. If you look at Dell's website for example, there is not the slightest trace of such information, even though Dell doesn't sell through any store, so if you buy a Dell product, then they are _always_ the seller (whereas Apple is sometimes the seller, and Apple stores also sell other company's products, in which case that Apple store also is the seller responsible to handle your legal rights).

Re:Once again, misleading summary (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993577)

Actually, it's correct. The EU statute applies to the manufacturer, not the seller, and most companies simply provide a two-year warranty that meets or exceeds their obligations under EU statute, rather than train staff on local rules. Apple has gone that route.

You're probably thinking of the Sale of Goods Act which applies in the UK, and which does apply to the seller. There are moves to harmonise the EU rules which would essentially remove the UK statute but I (and the government) think it would be a bad idea. I have more power under the SOGA than the EU rule. (I once used it to very easily get a TV replaced that died 8 months out of the warranty. They called me up and gave me store credit equal to most of its value, to account for depreciation.)

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993667)

Actually this is collossally wrong, it does apply to the seller. Where the heck did I pick that up from?

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43994017)

I can't imagine sellers suddenly taking on this financial responsibility, unless it's already build into their contracts and business model.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43994123)

It's the case in the UK; the idea is that sellers are incentivised not to stock and sell crap.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994233)

That's the general idea behind it, not just in the UK.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

Inda (580031) | about a year ago | (#43994189)

You've got to love the SOGA.

If you buy a builder's brick, you expect that to last 100 years, and that's what the SOGA covers. All these warranties are complete bollocks.

I expect a TV to last a good 5 or 6 years, the SOGA covers that too. They gave you a credit because they had to, not because they're a Nice Shop (tm).

A pair of socks? Maybe they'll last 12 months. Not a problem.

(I know you corrected yourself about manufacturer/retailer)

Re:Once again, misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993659)

I'm not sure why you were modded up since you're completely wrong.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

polar red (215081) | about a year ago | (#43994375)

oblig:
"you must be new here"

Re:Once again, misleading summary (3, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43993853)

Apple often is the retailer of their own products. They were selling people extended warranties that they didn't need because they were already covered.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43994021)

No they were not covered. After the first six months you are responsible for proving that it was Apple's fault; with an extended warranty it's Apple that has to prove that it's not.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year ago | (#43994177)

No they were not covered. After the first six months you are responsible for proving that it was Apple's fault; with an extended warranty it's Apple that has to prove that it's not.

Not quite. With a usual warranty, like Apples extended warranty, it's basically up to the company to decide what they cover and what not.
You hear quite often about people who where denied a repair under warranty because the maker found some clause in their legalese that excludes that special case.

The mandatory warranty, on the other hand, is defined by law and companies can not as easily weasel out of it.

You are right, though, that only for the first 6 months it is assumed that a defect was there from the start. Afterwards, the customer has to prove that that is the case.
But the consumer is still covered for the remainder of the period (usually 2 years, less if the goods ar perishable or sold used).

Since european courts tend to be rather consumer-friendly, sellers don't demand proof even after more than 6 months as long as it is not obvious that the consumer is trying to scam them.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43994281)

Correct, I just meant that you're not covered by the same thing as you would be by buying the extended warranty.

Re:Once again, misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994225)

I wonder how many Apple products (or indeed any products) fail between the one and two year marks. When the manufacturers test a subset of their products after manufacture, will they send the production runs with fewer failures toward Europe to attempt to limit the returns coming from Europe?

Will this mean that Europe starts to get a better quality product as a result?

terms already mandatory in other EU countries (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year ago | (#43993573)

No word yet on when the rest of the EU will see those changes, but it would now seem to be just a matter of time before other countries get the new terms as well.

Nope. the customers in other EU countries already have the same (or very similar) terms. Because these terms are based on laws that are based on EU guidelines. And law trumps whatever Apple says they are willing to do.
The only thing missing is Apple admitting to the customers what rights they have under the law.

Re:terms already mandatory in other EU countries (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993583)

"The new terms" which they refer to are the correct, legally appropriate warranty from Apple, not the EU laws.

Re:terms already mandatory in other EU countries (1)

Splab (574204) | about a year ago | (#43993595)

You are by law required to give at least the EU standard for warranty, you can never write your product out of this.

You can provider better warranty, which a lot of business do, but never worse.

Re:terms already mandatory in other EU countries (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993619)

I think the problem here is that the word warranty is used differently. Because I know for sure that some EU countries don't have any requirement whatsoever that the seller and/or manufacturer provides warranty. What they require is similar to warranty, but clearly defined as something different from warranty.

Re:terms already mandatory in other EU countries (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year ago | (#43994317)

In German we actually have two different words for this: Garantie for the (voluntary) warranty of a seller or manufacturer and GewÃhrleistung for the mandatory warranty.

Re:terms already mandatory in other EU countries (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43993641)

...yes?

Re:terms already mandatory in other EU countries (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43994107)

You are by law required to give at least the EU standard for warranty, you can never write your product out of this.

As usual, confused and unclear. "You" as the manufacturer can give whatever warranty you want. Obviously giving a longer warranty makes customers happier and makes them trust your products more, but you can give any warranty you like. "You" as the seller (the store) selling a product don't have to give any warranty, but you have to follow the law and make sure the goods you sell are of reasonable quality, and fix them if they fail, according to the law.

Two year term already in effect (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#43993709)

Well, duh. This is just the paperwork catching up with the law. EU citizens already have 2 year warranties.

Re:Two year term already in effect (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43993743)

The EU doesn't have a two year warranty. I was going to explain it, but Udo Schmitz did a much better job if you look a bit further down.

Uhm, nope. (4, Insightful)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | about a year ago | (#43993725)

Any of you wonder why the text reading “revised the terms of its warranties in France, Germany and Belgium” links to an article that instead says: “Apple has updated its policies”? And why said article doesn’t link to those policies but instead (for Germany at least) links not to a promised PDF but an article at ifun.de?

http://www.ifun.de/apple-kommuniziert-gewaehrleistungsanspruch-deutlicher-41275/ [www.ifun.de]

In which is stated that Apple adds this paragraph to its product pages in the Apple Store:

“In Deutschland haben Verbraucher gemäß BGB innerhalb von zwei Jahren ab Übergang der Ware Anspruch auf eine kostenlose Reparatur, einen kostenlosen Austausch, einen Rabatt oder eine Rückzahlung durch den Händler, wenn das gekaufte Produkt zum Zeitpunkt des Übergangs nicht dem Kaufvertrag entspricht.”

My human translation: “In Germany—according to BGB [Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch/civil code]— customers have the right, within tow years of transfer of the goods, of free repair, free replacement, a rebate or repayment by the vendor, if the purchased product does not comply with the terms of the purchase contract at the date of transfer.”

They do this because with the Apple Store (be it online or brick and mortar) they are the vendor. This, EU-mandated, german warranty applies to the vendor. If you buy an Apple product at Random-Computer-Hütte and it breaks within one year you can either call the manufacturer Apple upon their 1-year warranty or go to the vendor. If it breaks after a year but within two years you’ll have to deal with that vendor. If you buy at an Apple-run store manufacturer and vendor are the same. And if it breaks after two years you could use Apple-care if you bought it.

Still, Apples warranty gives better protection. With the EU-warranty, if the product breaks after 6 months the burden of proof that the product did not comply with the terms of the purchase contract when you bought it, is on your side. And if you buy AppleCare you not only get Apple warranty for three years instead of one, but free phone support on top of that.

Re:Uhm, nope. (1)

Pete (big-pete) (253496) | about a year ago | (#43993885)

And if you buy AppleCare you not only get Apple warranty for three years instead of one, but free phone support on top of that.

I live in Belgium, and my first year warranty came up on Monday this week for my MacBookPro Retina. I came very close to buying AppleCare, but I baulked at the cost at the last moment (340 Euro). With this new ruling, I'm glad I gave it a miss, if it only gives me 1 additional year of coverage, and free support calls that I won't use anyway...

Having said that, I've had quite a bad run with AppleCare, I bought it for my first MacBookPro, which was then stolen 1 week after I activated the AppleCare - AppleCare doesn't help much for a stolen laptop... I then didn't buy it for my replacement MacBookPro, which developed a fault (pink areas on the screen that should be white) after about 2 years and 360 days...doh.

-- Pete.

The Version Showing Up in the UK (1)

Fleetie (603229) | about a year ago | (#43993811)

By coincidence, I happened to notice this on their UK site, yesterday evening:

"Claim period

2 years (minimum) from date of delivery, 5 years in Scotland and 6 years in the rest of the UK"

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/ [apple.com]

Re:The Version Showing Up in the UK (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43994161)

2 years (minimum) from date of delivery, 5 years in Scotland and 6 years in the rest of the UK"

"Claim period" is the time where you can make a claim. So if the seller was supposed to fix problems that happened in the first two years, and your computer breaks after 23 months, and you claim two months later, they still have to fix it. If you claim 5 years and 11 months later, they still have to fix it. Except you have to prove that it broke within the first two years, and prove that it was the manufacturer's fault and not yours, which after almost six years might be difficult.

Since the time that goods have to last depends on the nature of the goods, there are probably some goods where you would get your money back if they fail after 5 1/2 years. Like a stone statue that I buy and put in my garden, I'd expect that not to crumble to pieces within 20 years.

UK Sales of Goods act (1)

ColonelClaw (744934) | about a year ago | (#43993865)

If you're in the UK it's always worth remembering that the Sales of Goods Act cover electrical goods for up to 6 (or is it 7?) years depending upon the product's application. Recently I quoted it to Quantum to get them to replace our knackered DLT S4 drive that packed up after about 4 year's use. I argued that since it was an enterprise product it was reasonable to assume it should last the full 6 years. They agreed surprisingly quickly and replaced the unit with a new one. A friend of mine used the same tactic on Apple with a broken Time Capsule that was also out of warranty - same result, quote the Sales of Goods Act and they'll give you a replacement.

What about the EU data privacy law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43993969)

EU has a data privacy law, that bars the sort of thing Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. did in the PRISM program. Breaching that law means breaching the safe harbor agreement. They lose the safe harbour after that. The data has to be moved back to the EU and be held under EU privacy regulations, which among other things prevents NSA back doors.

And if Apple want to prosper, they'd better get with the privacy agenda.

If General Keith Allen took the limits off spying so it could be done against citizens of the USA regardless of the laws, I have no doubt he would take the limits off cyber-propaganda so it could be used to target American forums.
I bet he even used the same argument, "well foreigners might be using Slashdot, so its ok to fill slashdot with cyber-warriors to push our views". Yes?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

Mod me down if you will, dear NSA 'cyber-warriors'. When it comes to election time and your bosses have you modding political comments to favor some candidates over others, just keep kidding yourself you're the good guys.

When the Generals are leaking political secrets from their giant database, keep kidding yourself you're doing good for America and its legal, because your general tells you that a secret court ruled it was, even if the secret court ruling cannot be read because its secret.

You NSA Cyber Warrior guys will get mod points, and be techies on slashdot same as everyone else, and each mod point will be nail in the coffin of democracy. Don't lie to yourself otherwise. /rant

Re:What about the EU data privacy law? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43994037)

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Only 1 or 2 years? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#43994061)

Isn't that sort of short for a PC?

So 3 countries done, 24 remaining... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994143)

Imagine what it would be like if citizens declared "we're already trying to not murder, perhaps some time in the future we won't rape and pillage"...

IT'S THE FUCKING LAW, OBEY IT!

Apple is obviously asking for another fine, this time much, much bigger. This time, make it count so there won't have to be a 3rd fine. They've got the money and the attitude, so this is the perfect use for the law.

DON'T FUCK WITH EUROPE.

America: We want that here! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#43994203)

Call your Congressman. Send him a postcard.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>