4 ms·

This seems overly generous to the consumer. If I buy a product such as an iPad, then break the screen, then replace the screen with an inferior (dimmer, say) pa

by bdamm 9y ago

This seems overly generous to the consumer. If I buy a product such as an iPad, then break the screen, then replace the screen with an inferior (dimmer, say) part, can I now claim back to Apple that the product is unsuitable and expect a replacement within the terms of the warranty? Even if this is about unrelated parts, such as a battery failure after replacing the screen, how much effort will it take the manufacturer to a) ensure that the device has no other less obvious changes and b) ensure that the parts that were replaced didn't have an unexpected effect? Certainly I've seen, in manufacturing devices that emit EM, unintended consequences where parts caused interference significant enough to damage other parts (usually through unexpected signals.) It's clearly a win for consumers but I wonder how companies can carry the burden. Perhaps all-inclusive warranties will fade into history as a result.

jsight 9y ago
It is definitely a concern. The company would have to prove that the third party component caused the problem. With your example, this would be fairly clear as the screen wouldn't be covered. It can clearly become ambiguous in some cases, though. Also, this isn't a new law. It is just them stating their intent to enforce the Magnussen Moss Warranty act (enacted in 1975) against companies that (often intentionally) mislead customers.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Apple would have to provide its own internal standard for screens, and show that the replacement screen did not meet the standard. Replacement screen manufacturers now potentially have access to the Apple standard, and can build parts that meet it. They could just buy a bunch of products, replace some original parts with their own aftermarket or repair parts, then wait for something else to break under warranty. If the manufacturer denies warranty coverage from the replacement part, the proof can be used to improve the product. If the manufacturer doesn't deny coverage, that's evidence it is an acceptable, non-interfering replacement.
SomeCallMeTim 9y ago
This is entirely a straw man, and doesn't even represent the reality (or age!) of the law. What the law implies is that Apple needs to continue to warrant the REST of the iPad, even if someone else has done work on the iPad at some point, unless that work caused the damage being claimed under warranty. They are perfectly able to say that they won't cover damage caused by you (or, by extension, anyone you hire to work on your iPad). If the screen came from another provider, then Apple no longer needs to cover the screen at all, in fact. That's perfectly legal under current law. But Apple can't cancel the warranty on the rest of the device if the screen replacement procedure didn't cause the damage. If, for instance, the iPad (the one with a replaced screen above) stops holding any charge after six months due to a faulty battery, and there is no connection between that new problem and the screen replacement procedure, then Apple still needs to cover the repair or replacement of the battery. The problem is that if a competent screen repair voids all warranties, then you are being forced to go to Apple for all repairs. And that's what is illegal. If a car dealer requires that you get the oil changed at a dealer in order to maintain your warranty, but something completely unrelated fails, they can't then say "Sorry, your warranty is void because you didn't pay our high maintenance rates." That's what the law is about, and it's been that way since 1975 (!!), so I don't think we're going to suddenly see a drop in all-inclusive warranties just because the FTC is cracking down on a half dozen companies that aren't in compliance.
- makomk 9y ago
  This isn't entirely a strawman. One of the things that pretty much all repair professionals seem to hate is dealing with hardware that people have tried to fix themselves, especially stuff dating from the days where this was possible, because it's a huge amount of work to try and figure out what they could've screwed up. Now every company with a warranty has to either put in that work or give no-questions-asked warranty replacements to people who damage the products they sell, and all their other customers have to pay for it.
  - SomeCallMeTim 9y ago
    Only for versions of "now" that date back to 1975, since that's when the law was passed.
gms7777 9y ago
As far as the screen goes, I presume that warrantee would only cover the original parts. The warrantee for the original parts would be in tact in that case, and in your example, the original parts are functioning as intended. The case where replacement parts (or the replacement process itself) damaged the original product is a concern. I think it has to come down to a balance ultimately -- wherever you place the bar, companies and customers alike will find ways to abuse it, it'll just be easier for one group or the other. I think overall though we need to err towards giving more power to consumers for one reason: Both groups have a lever to protect themselves from damages, companies can raise the cost of or not offer warranties, and costumers can choose to not buy the products. However, there's always an inherent information imbalance in the direction of companies -- they know their product better than you do, they know what they cheaped out on, they might have exclusive access to replacement parts, or exclusive expertise for repairs. And this in general makes it much easier to abuse consumers.
lovich 9y ago
Companies should stop selling warranties that are only economically viable if they break the law then. It's not a new law or decision

by bdamm 9y ago

jsight 9y ago

It is definitely a concern. The company would have to prove that the third party component caused the problem. With your example, this would be fairly clear as the screen wouldn't be covered. It can clearly become ambiguous in some cases, though. Also, this isn't a new law. It is just them stating their intent to enforce the Magnussen Moss Warranty act (enacted in 1975) against companies that (often intentionally) mislead customers.

logfromblammo 9y ago
Apple would have to provide its own internal standard for screens, and show that the replacement screen did not meet the standard. Replacement screen manufacturers now potentially have access to the Apple standard, and can build parts that meet it. They could just buy a bunch of products, replace some original parts with their own aftermarket or repair parts, then wait for something else to break under warranty. If the manufacturer denies warranty coverage from the replacement part, the proof can be used to improve the product. If the manufacturer doesn't deny coverage, that's evidence it is an acceptable, non-interfering replacement.

SomeCallMeTim 9y ago

This is entirely a straw man, and doesn't even represent the reality (or age!) of the law. What the law implies is that Apple needs to continue to warrant the REST of the iPad, even if someone else has done work on the iPad at some point, unless that work caused the damage being claimed under warranty. They are perfectly able to say that they won't cover damage caused by you (or, by extension, anyone you hire to work on your iPad). If the screen came from another provider, then Apple no longer needs to cover the screen at all, in fact. That's perfectly legal under current law. But Apple can't cancel the warranty on the rest of the device if the screen replacement procedure didn't cause the damage. If, for instance, the iPad (the one with a replaced screen above) stops holding any charge after six months due to a faulty battery, and there is no connection between that new problem and the screen replacement procedure, then Apple still needs to cover the repair or replacement of the battery. The problem is that if a competent screen repair voids all warranties, then you are being forced to go to Apple for all repairs. And that's what is illegal. If a car dealer requires that you get the oil changed at a dealer in order to maintain your warranty, but something completely unrelated fails, they can't then say "Sorry, your warranty is void because you didn't pay our high maintenance rates." That's what the law is about, and it's been that way since 1975 (!!), so I don't think we're going to suddenly see a drop in all-inclusive warranties just because the FTC is cracking down on a half dozen companies that aren't in compliance.

makomk 9y ago
This isn't entirely a strawman. One of the things that pretty much all repair professionals seem to hate is dealing with hardware that people have tried to fix themselves, especially stuff dating from the days where this was possible, because it's a huge amount of work to try and figure out what they could've screwed up. Now every company with a warranty has to either put in that work or give no-questions-asked warranty replacements to people who damage the products they sell, and all their other customers have to pay for it.
- SomeCallMeTim 9y ago
  Only for versions of "now" that date back to 1975, since that's when the law was passed.

gms7777 9y ago

As far as the screen goes, I presume that warrantee would only cover the original parts. The warrantee for the original parts would be in tact in that case, and in your example, the original parts are functioning as intended. The case where replacement parts (or the replacement process itself) damaged the original product is a concern. I think it has to come down to a balance ultimately -- wherever you place the bar, companies and customers alike will find ways to abuse it, it'll just be easier for one group or the other. I think overall though we need to err towards giving more power to consumers for one reason: Both groups have a lever to protect themselves from damages, companies can raise the cost of or not offer warranties, and costumers can choose to not buy the products. However, there's always an inherent information imbalance in the direction of companies -- they know their product better than you do, they know what they cheaped out on, they might have exclusive access to replacement parts, or exclusive expertise for repairs. And this in general makes it much easier to abuse consumers.

lovich 9y ago

Companies should stop selling warranties that are only economically viable if they break the law then. It's not a new law or decision