I've always argued that for the prices that Apple charges Apple Care should be included in all its products.
The first Apple computers I bought lasted for years and I never thought Apple Care was necessary, but since the fiasco with the 2011 MBP and the butterfly keyboards I'm not buying another of its products without Apple Care. Yes, Apple ended up doing the right thing in both cases but it took years after the problems started and a couple of class action lawsuits.
It presumably is in some areas. In New Zealand we have The Consumer Guarantees Act. Things are expected to have a reasonable life span. What this means is not specified but is generally accepted to be relative to the price paid (eg if it’s expensive, it should last). It’s a fantastic piece of legislation. I’ve had a 2.5 year old iPhone covered for example.
I believe that the parent meant that Apple charges enough (in the US), so it should have the extended guarantee included there. In NZ, things cost extra due to that law, correct? The difference: is everybody is paying for that extra protection, there's no choice.
If you have this protection, it's like insurance. You, and everybody else, pay an insignificant amount of money and you get a much more expansive treatment incase of failure.
Sure you have a choice, back the politicians that are against this.
I don't get why freedom loving people rather have a corporate take away their freedoms than a democratic self governed body.
Both are power clusters, but in one you have a moral ground to criticise when it's acting against the populous interests (democratic government). While abuses of power from corporate cannot be argued against morally, you don't own them, they are playing by the rules, they manage to make a buck, all is above board morally while in actuality masses of people might be hurt by corporate abuses of power.
Freedom is extremely important but it is sometime conflicted with other values, a reasonable discussion of the conflict and tradeoffs is a much better way to improve life for people, than fanatically protecting the one single value you hold most dear.
Aside from the additional taxation and regulations in NZ, it does have some pretty unavoidable issues which drive up the prices of consumer goods. It’s a very small market, and very far away. Getting things there is just going to cost more anyway, and the market isn’t big enough to invite significant competition, so there’s usually a large (or at least larger than a lot of other places) markup on imported goods.
It’s not just far, it’s far away from everything, including all the major trade routes. In Europe and Asia, a lot more goods are produced close by, and if you ship a product to any country in Europe or Asia, there’s a lot more people to buy it, and a lot more markets close by.
And there are lots of regulations too. For example I sold an oil burner light on eBay to someone in NZ (didn't actually know as there was a UK address that forwarded the package) and I included some oils for free...
Big mistake. Package was returned and I had to remove them.
My only point being it's a poor port in part because of its delicate ecosystem, which necessitates very strict regulations.
Add a layover and you could easily be at 20+ hours (which is common since NZ is small so there aren’t that many flights). Europe is well over 24 hours even to the major hubs.
TV set you get on Black Friday works until X-mas. It was a bargain, what did you expect?
That discount you got on your car? You think it was because of your outstanding negotiation skills? Think again, the seller swapped a cheaper bifurcator, meaning your mileage will suffer. But is it wrong? You got a discount.
If you sell it, if needs to be good. If it is not good, you cannot sell it. There's no price in question.
In Norway, it's not based on the price, but the product type. So TVs in general are said to last at least 5 years. So if you sell a cheap tv that breaks after 4 years, you have to replace it.
This of course means one don't get as much ultra cheap stuff sold, but at the same time most of that stuff is crap, and it's better for the environment to build stuff that lasts.
I don't think Apple should necessarily include coverage for user-caused damage as standard, but having only a single-year warranty on manufacturer defects is kinda shameful for a premium product. I expect premium products across most product categories to carry a three or five year warranty as standard.
A single-year warranty is in general an indicator that a) the manufacturer doesn't have faith in reliability past the first year and b) the manufacturer is begrudgingly just meeting the minimum standard for warranties in most jurisdictions. Even if neither of these are the case, the optics aren't good.
>A single-year warranty is in general an indicator that a) the manufacturer doesn't have faith in reliability past the first year and b) the manufacturer is begrudgingly just meeting the minimum standard for warranties in most jurisdictions. Even if neither of these are the case, the optics aren't good.
Dell's Precision workstations come with 3 years warranty, upgradable to 5 years coverage with on-site service. There is no reason Apple can't match that.
I live in Indonesia where there is no Apple store and where time for repair of an issue such as keyboard replacement is six weeks.
This wasn’t an issue years ago because reliability wasn’t an issue. My ~2005 30” Apple Cinema Display is going strong connected to my 2010 Apple mini. My 2017 MBP however has been the most unreliable hardware I’ve ever had (my first computer was a 286). 6 weeks for repairing a pro device with a hefty premium price.
In Europe a lot of products have to include 2 years warranty by default, which makes Apple Care a lot less attractive. You're basically paying the same price for just one more year instead of two.
Not every EU country has such a law. In the UK 1-year long warranties are standard, but some other states mandate 2 years on all electronic devices.
Unless of course you are talking about the EU-wide consumer protection rights which apply for 2-6 years after purchase, but which people very mistakenly call a guarantee. The problem with this protection is that it protects you only against manufacturing defects. And anything that happens after the initial 6 months is up to you to prove that it existed at the time of purchase. So no, if your MacBook suddenly dies 23 months after purchase, apple doesn't have to repair it, unless you can demonstrate to them that it died because of a manufacturing defect. In comparison, apple care would get your laptop replaced under the same circumstance.
We have CRA 2015 here in UK. 6 years on everything. Apple ask me what I want to claim under when I take my stuff in there. I only need AppleCare for when I break something :)
2 years for people, 1 year for businesses. That includes self employed people if they want to enter it as an expense in the accounting books (I'm not sure about the terms in English, I hope you understand what I mean.)
I'm wary about AppleCare BECAUSE of the MBP keyboard incident. They refused to replace mine or my wife's. I have purchased well into the 6 figures of Apple devices over the decades.
p.s. Switched to Windows when I bought my laptop for that reason.
I hear you. My current strategy, unfortunately, is to buy a new MBP, sell it at exactly 23 months so that I can advertise "over 1 year left of Apple Care".
assicuration is often a form of self selction bias. people conscious about damaging their property are those that are more likely to take care of it. apple care for everyone can dramatically shift its profitability.
The first Apple computers I bought lasted for years and I never thought Apple Care was necessary, but since the fiasco with the 2011 MBP and the butterfly keyboards I'm not buying another of its products without Apple Care. Yes, Apple ended up doing the right thing in both cases but it took years after the problems started and a couple of class action lawsuits.