Apple forced to increase warranty to two years in Australia
cnet.com.au
cnet.com.au
That being said, they have definitely been repairing products up to two years after purchase for the last little while (up to a year or so). We've had a couple of phones replaced and an iMac repaired that we've had for about 18 months without any issues.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that goods should be as follows:
Of satisfactory quality.
This means the goods must meet the standards that any reasonable person would expect, taking into account the description, the price and all other relevant information. In some circumstances, the retailer may be liable for any statement made by the manufacturer about the goods.
Satisfactory quality includes the appearance and finish of the goods, their safety and durability and whether they are free from defects (including minor faults)
Fit for the purpose that goods of this type are generally sold. They must also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known to the seller at the time of the agreement.Edit: IANAL, but this information comes from the Which? consumer group.
This is why Apple was forced to change their Apple Care plan, since most of what you would buy is already guaranteed by law.
(Apple isn't the only one that tries that, many brick & mortar electronics retailers still try to sell people "insurance" that for 90% exists of rights you already have.)
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Meanwhile, in the bitcoin thread...
..wait, is that the sort of equal and opposite reaction you meant?
It shouldn't. Apple were already legally liable to repair the products for that long (or longer) under Australian law. This just stops them misrepresenting their responsibilities.
(And if it leads to an increase in claims, which does force them to increase their prices, then yes, I agree: Apple products must have been underpriced originally. Or another way of looking at it is that it explains how they maintain their high margins)
Yes, like (probable) loss of market share when you increase prices arbitrarily. It all balances out eventually.
That said, in the case of mandatory warranty policy, I can definitely see some merit. It definitely seems like certain appliances are being sold in a lemon market [2] (think blenders, etc), where the market is flooded with sub-standard, cheap products. These can become the norm and set overly low price expectations, making it difficult for good products to compete.
How this applies to top-end smartphones is another discussion. I don't see why it should be difficult for a them to honor the policy, given their focus on quality. What's important is that all companies honor the mandate, and compete on an equal footing w.r.t. consumer expectations.
[1] http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20...
Isn't that exactly what government is supposed to do?
Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about these types of things; on the one hand, they are probably correct, and they probably do more good than harm. On the other hand, having an over-regulated country might have a negative effect on both the competitiveness of the economy (companies having to navigate a minefield of regulations, driving costs up), as well as coming at the cost of personal freedoms (along the lines of: hey, if I want to have a tap running at 70 degrees, should I not be allowed to?). These are just silly examples, but I think you get the idea.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-the-lun...
As for competitiveness, I'm not sure how having more burns victims being paid for by medicare is great for the economy, nor do I see how it's efficient for every homebuilder to be forced to go and become an expert on burns so they know exactly what delivery temperature their taps should be set to. It's far more efficient to have a central expert organisation do this research, then declare it the standard.
I don't agree with it all the time, of course. Bicycle helmets would be my #1 example, where I think the regulatory authorities have made a big mistake not considering all the externalities and second order ramifications of their policy.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/12/apple-hit-with-12-milli...
[2] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/following-fine-in-italy...
When I took it to the genius bar asking why they didn't do a recall, they suggested I part it out.
I was delighted when my house insurance bill went down considerably, because my newer Macbook was worth just less than £1000, where the previous one had been just over - meaning it became covered by the policy without a separate declaration, and an additional fee.
I've always been very happy with apple service