SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
TechCrunch reports on a lawsuit being brought against Apple by owners of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus who say a design defect causes the touchscreens to become unresponsive. The loss of responsiveness is often preceded by a flickering gray bar appearing across the top of the screen. iFixit discusses a few possible sources of the "Touch Disease" problem, with the most popular theory being that the Touch IC chips lose contact with the logic board due to the phone bending.
The complaint [PDF], filed in California's Northern District federal court, alleges that Apple is aware of the design flaw and has concealed it from consumers by refusing to acknowledge or repair it. It also suggests that the 5s and 5c protected against this problem in various ways, so it's not as if Apple didn't know it was a possibility. The 6s and Plus got stiffened to prevent bending, as well.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by bob_super on Tuesday August 30 2016, @07:45PM
How many people do actually have a 6 still under warranty? The thing was designed two years ago and replaced last year. If it didn't die during the warranty, you don't have ground to complain or sue.
I'm really starting to wonder about that new yearly tradition of "sue Apple in late August, just before they announce the new toy".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @08:37PM
If it didn't die during the warranty, you don't have ground to complain or sue.
Yeah...! Because the stuff we make is designed to break as soon as the warranty expires. That's how we do shit around here...
How DARE you ask that we make stuff that is build properly and lasts! (I mean, for a +600USD gizmo, it *should* be built a bit better, no?)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday August 30 2016, @09:33PM
> How DARE you ask that we make stuff that is build properly and lasts!
It lasted just long enough to get you to the next version, which you are required to be grateful for. Your significant other may not object to your need for a shinier replacement.
Given your experience, would you like to buy the new one? You are free to say no, and forfeit every last dime you invested in our wonderful walled garden.
But your expectations in terms of the lifespan of the product are irrelevant, regardless of the price. We'll let the market fairly sort out those who retain their customer from those who don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @09:44PM
If it didn't die during the warranty, you don't have ground to complain or sue.
This is half correct... maybe only a one-fourth correct.
For suing, I am not a lawyer, but I would expect you are probably right that once a system is out of warranty there is few grounds for suing (assuming it doesn't do something silly, like starting a fire). However, I imagine there could be some implicit warranty or some such based on the set of laws you are operating under... maybe...
However, complaining is another question entirely. Imagine if the day after warranty, every Toyota (or Ford, or whatever) car just stopped working. Every single one. I'm sure there would be outrage, and rightly so. There is a societal expectation that cars will run for years, so the social and moral outrage would be absolutely justified. Whether it is legally actionable is another question, but a complaint is absolutely in order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @10:01PM
You can sue for defective products, which is basically a form of negligence under torts law. There are also various consumer protection laws that are a bit more specific.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 30 2016, @10:38PM
Agreed, I should have specified "file a complaint" (official) rather than "complain" (anyone can get pissed when their toy breaks).
Legal minimum warranties are typically a year for consumer products, with some exceptions. I don't know of any jurisdiction which has extended minimum warranties for phones, but I'm open to learning something new today. (got a vague memory of someone mulling a two-year one for electronics)
On another note, there are indeed social expectations with regards to some products and services, and justifiable calls for boycott of companies who violate them. But in these post-religious years we live in (at least as far as companies are concerned), we are not done hearing about the likes of Shkreli.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @11:43PM
How many people do actually have a 6 still under warranty? The thing was designed two years ago and replaced last year. If it didn't die during the warranty, you don't have ground to complain or sue.
So if a company makes a product that it knows is defective and knowingly conceals that fact from consumers, that's OK with you as long as it lasts through its warranty period? How's your pacemaker doing? Still under warranty I hope?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 31 2016, @12:02AM
You've failed to define the word "defective".
People have spent hundreds of billions of hours over the last two years using a product. Some have just started noticing that it was not as durable as they expected.
Can they express their disappointment to a manufacturer which upsells on perceived quality? Sure.
Is it "defective" ? Only if it was sold under the explicit premise that it would outlast its warranty period by a factor of two. The fact that many people bought it under a two-year contract might be perceived to infer this, but the operator is not the manufacturer.
IANAL, and I hate Apple, but that kind of argument is like shooting fish in a barrel for them. Boycott if you're unhappy, but don't expect to gain legal standing just because you fell for the marketing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:37AM
So, I would assume that you don't consider the Y2K or related bugs to be actual bugs because people used them just fine for years before the bug became apparent? What about your surgeon leaves an instrument inside, but it doesn't jiggle loose for a few years? How about a fan with giant finger-sized gaps in the grill? Or those airbags that spew metal shrapnel? Asbestos? Silicone breast implants? SUV rollovers?
There is a reason that tort and customer protection law go beyond a simple line of being out of luck when the warranty expires.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:27AM
Minimum legal warranty towards customers is 2 years in most of Europe (1 year for B2B); next to that there are laws for obvious defects and factory defects that don't even need warranty.
e.g. maybe your car comes with only 2 years warranty; but everyone expects it to last longer than that. So if the manufacturer knows there's a defect that makes it stop working after 3 years. He is legally on the hook for it (and not proper testing for the expected life of the good won't stand).
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 31 2016, @04:05PM
> So if the manufacturer knows there's a defect that makes it stop working after 3 years. He is legally on the hook for it
Citation needed.
Unless it's a clear safety issue, the manufacturer typically only provides fixes on their own dime once they tally the probability of rabid press, pissed customers, testing inquiries, and general bad publicity.
Manufacturers have refused recalls many times (betting on apathy).