On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:24:47 +0000, RJH wrote:
> Apparently (I am not a lawyer!), the 6 year 'thing' applies to higher
> end items
Hi RJH,
I _love_ that you provided a factual cite to back up your claim
o Where it's my habit to _read_ claims that people make.
So that's good that you provided a cite; the only problem is that the cite
merely says that after six months, you need overwhelming evidence to
_prove_ that the product was _initially_ defective.
What we _need_ is something from Apple (or the retailer) that says the
AirPods can last more than a measly two years.
Please note if the AirPods do last only two years, then the cost to
consumers is roughly around $80 per year for the rest of their lives (which
is astronomically expensive).
The "six year" period is completely unrelated, as it applies _only_ to
paperwork filing deadlines (sort of like a statute of limitations on the
paperwork).
> and you're right, it's not a clear cut entitlement. It's more
> the threat of small claims action and the publicity it generates. Small
> claims action is a low cost online procedure.
Hi RJH,
FACT + LOGIC
I appreciate that you didn't immediately devolve into JollyRoger & Lewis
style vitriol simply because you found out that your cite didn't say what
you thought it said.
I very much appreciate your civility, as it's a habit of an adult to handle
facts well, even facts that belie their current belief systems.
In general, facts _threaten_ the belief system of the apologists.
o For me, facts merely bolster my belief system
As adults, we can agree on the facts, which is that the cite you provided
says, as I recall, that for the first six months, it's up to the "retailer"
to prove the AirPods were not initially defective, but after those first
six months, the burden falls upon the consumer to prove that the AirPods
were _initially_ defective.
The good thing is that you don't seem to be an Apologist
o Hence, we don't need to waste more time on agreeing on that fact
What we should do is spend our adult energy on the "logic"
o Our logic is _based_ on those facts, which we both agree upon.
> One anecdote - the screen failed on a friend's top end 4 year old iMac.
> He phoned and made an appointment for inspection at his local Apple
> store. They swapped it over for a brand new better spec iMac on the
> spot. No charge.
I understand that some companies at some times go overboard.
o I've gotten _plenty_ of freebies from T-Mobile, for example
But you can't bank on that for an entire class of people
o Witness how crappily Apple treated iPhone battery owners
HINT: Secretly, drastically, and permanently throttling their phones
o And then, charging the customer the repairs for the defective device
Apple has a long history of being extremely consumer unfriendly
as _multiple_ reports have cited (and which I quoted in other threads).
> If my Apple earphones become 'functionally useless' after 2 years, I'd
> take them back to Apple and cite the CRA 2015 if they refused to either
> reimburse or replace.
Hi RJH,
I would do the same thing, but I'd have almost zero hope it would work.
The CRA2015, at least based on the facts in your cite, says you have to
prove to the retailer's satisfaction, that the batteries were _initially_
defective.
What if Apple says 2 years is the normal lifetime of those batteries?
o The problem here is that we're _missing_ a key factual datum
*How long does Apple claim the AirPod batteries will last?*
>
> FY(limited)I, this is the computer generated letter that consumer rights
> website generates for a query of this kind:
Hi RJH,
I appreciate the information where I think we don't have the facts.
o The main fact we need is how long does Apple claim AirPods last?
If Apple claims "up to" two years, then your claim stops right there.
> The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract I
> have with Apple that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of
> satisfactory quality.
Since a battery is a wear item, that sentence is, IMHO, missing a key
factual component, which is that the batteries were _initially_ defective.
Please read the CR 2015 article if you disagree with that statement.
o The whole point of the CR 2015 was clearly _initial_ defectiveness
I'm not a lawyer but I am of at least average intelligence (if that), which
means I can clearly comprehend what an article says and what the key points
of that article are.
The key points are:
o The AirPod has to be _initially_ defective
o The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was initially defective.
Like you, I'm not a lawyer, but I am an adult of at least average
intelligence (if that), so I assume that what you'd need is to find
something (anything) from Apple that says how long Apple expects AirPods to
last.
The fact that they replace batteries all the time, which we can presume is
a booming business for them, doesn't bode well for your argument that the
AirPods were initially defective.
They just don't last very long.
> As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less
> than 6 years I am within my statutory rights to ask for it to be
> repaired at no further cost to me.
Hi RJH,
I doubt that sentence about 6 years is what should be written since it's
patently wrong.
The six years is, as I read it anyway, merely a statutory limit on
paperwork filing, which is unrelated to the actual device being initially
defective.
Presumably it might take you six years to compile enough evidence.
o So I would _strike_ that sentence from the letter outright.
> So, to go back to the topic, I would have the reasonable expectation of
> repair or replacement.
HI RJH,
FACTS & LOGIC.
Remember, Apple is well known to be extremely consumer unfriendly.
Given we can presume Apple does a booming business replacing AirPod
batteries, and given that even when we _know_ the device was initially
defective in the case of almost all current iPhones, the fact that Apple
initially secretly throttled devices, and then _charged_ consumers for what
is clearly an initial defect, seems to indicate otherwise.
Think about what I just said, which are facts.
FACTS:
o Batteries are wear items
o Tiny batteries particularly don't last all that long
o Apple has a well-established AirPods battery replacement program
o Even larger-than-AirPods batteries in the defective iPhones don't last
o And Apple clearly _charged_ consumers for the repair of defective iPhones
Those are all facts, right?
LOGIC:
The "logic" various adults deduce from those facts is variable
o You appear to deduce that Apple will replace the batteries seeminly FOC
o I have no expectation whatsotever that Apple will bend over backward
While we, as adults, can't reasonable disagree with the facts (only the
Apologists seem to spend inordinate energy disputing basic facts), I hand
you the right to disagree with me on my logical deduction above based on
those facts.
Adults can't reasonable disagree on facts; but we can disagree on the
weight we apply to each of those factual components in order to arrive at a
logical deduction.
> However, I wouldn't expect it to get to that if indeed, as you say,
> airpods will 'die soon'. I would expect Apple to issue a fix of some kind.
Hi RJH,
I use only FACT & LOGIC, so please be aware of what I said
o And of what I didn't say.
Just like I would want you to be aware of what your cite said
o And what it didn't say
The Apple Apologists _constantly_ make inferences that are not supported by
the facts, where all my inferences are always supported by facts.
So let's be clear that I'm not the one saying that AirPods "will die soon"
as I'm not the one who wrote those news articles, and certainly I'm not the
one who authored this thread.
My only take on the matter is that AirPods are a fantastic money-making
MARKETING machine for Apple, where they use teeny tiny batteries when none
were needed (e.g., I use wired headphones).
Since they used teeny tiny batteries, and since those teeny tiny batteries
are glued in place, they're not easily replaced by the consumer like a
normal button battery is, then it's a really bad thing for Apple customers
if they don't last much more than two years.
The articles are saying that "some" died in just two years, and what
they're implying, at least with the clickbait headline, is that if your
AirPods are around that age, they "will die soon".
While I can't disagree with the logic in the article, we're missing a key
fact, without which, we can't say whether the AirPods were initially
defective.
o We don't know how long Apple says AirPods will last
If it's true that AirPods last only about two years, then that makes them
an astronomically expensive alternative to wired headphones, in that they
cost about $80 a year every single year for the rest of your life.