Repost: The iPhone X is the best selling phone in the world in Q1 2018

[mark_cameron]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, because all investigations and lawsuits end in the parties being guilty, there are never false investigations. That's why we have court systems -- to argue something everyone accepts as truth.

In the majority of cases yes they do.

 

No smoke without fire.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Intent is a US legal point, not a European one when it comes to anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices.

 

Its the action, and effect that matter. Intent is harder to prove. Isn't needed in this case.

Except that intent is required for planned obsolescence. Otherwise it's just fixing a mistake that ultimately also caused a slow down.... Unless you're also telling me that the Spectre patches are also planned obsolescence.

[mark_cameron]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Except that intent is required for planned obsolescence. Otherwise it's just fixing a mistake that ultimate caused a slow down.... Unless you're also telling me that the Spectre patches are also planned obsolescence.

No. We in Europe have something called the Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

 

If a company sells a product and that product still under warranty does not perform as advertised to consumers, that supplier is breaking the law. Because its the action - regardless of intent - of misleading consumers - that is itself illegal.

 

This is even before getting into other areas of consumer and anti-competition law areas.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, mark_cameron said:

No. We in Europe have something called the Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

 

If a company sells a product and that product still under warranty does not perform as advertised to consumers, that supplier is breaking the law. Because its the action - regardless of intent - of misleading consumers - that is itself illegal.

 

This is even before getting into other areas of consumer and anti-competition law areas.

I'm not saying there aren't possible legal ramifications for Apple's actions, but that's still not planned obsolescence.

[Commodus]

1 minute ago, mark_cameron said:

Regulators do not open investigations on a whim. They do so when they have evidence that is sufficient for a potential prosecution.

 

In other woulds they suspect and have evidence that supports the opening of the investigation. Indeed if they want to seize evidence they have to demonstrate that a crime may have been committed.

 

Additionally, it doesn't matter if Apple claim they did this with the alleged 'benefit' of consumers. If there is ultimately a negative effect against consumers having to replace phones more frequently because of artificially diminished performance.

 

The pleading ignorance defence of Apple isn't going to work.

Ah, but you claimed it was intentional obsolescence.  This isn't true as far as we can tell.  France may ultimately decide that Apple's move had the net effect of prompting people to upgrade earlier, but there's a big difference between that and purposefully slowing things down for the sake of selling more phones.

[Silentprototipe]

Well profit is profit I suppose  

[mark_cameron]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

Ah, but you claimed it was intentional obsolescence.  This isn't true as far as we can tell.  France may ultimately decide that Apple's move had the net effect of prompting people to upgrade earlier, but there's a big difference between that and purposefully slowing things down for the sake of selling more phones.

'Intentional' obsolescence matters not in my legal view. Because Apple are already undermining the performance of their product within the 2 year warranty period - regardless of the circumstances - and therefore are in breach of commercial contract with consumers in the EU/EEA.

 

For this reason - regardless of the French or Italian national laws - I believe Apple are breaking EU/EEA law.

 

I could technically demand Apple replace the battery and I believe they would be obligated to do so after 12 months and I should have ZERO loss in advertised performance. Or I am entitled to a free refund under contract.

 

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

 

[79wjd]

Just now, mark_cameron said:

'Intentional' obsolescence matters not in my legal view. Because Apple are already undermining the performance of their product within the 2 year warranty period - regardless of the circumstances - and therefore are in breach of commercial contract with consumers in the EU/EEA.

 

For this reason - regardless of the French or Italian national laws - I believe Apple are breaking EU/EEA law.

 

I could technically demand Apple replace the battery and I believe they would be obligated to do so after 12 months and I should have ZERO loss in advertised performance. Or I am entitled to a free refund under contract.

 

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

 

@Misanthrope goal post shifting please.

[mark_cameron]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

@Misanthrope goal post shifting please.

Apple have zero legal leg to stand on in Europe.

There are multiple avenues to attack them on their recent conduct.

 

This is why they are facing investigations.

[79wjd]

Just now, mark_cameron said:

Apple have zero legal leg to stand on in Europe.

There are multiple avenues to attack them on their recent conduct.

Still not planned obsolescence no matter how badly you want it to be.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

@Misanthrope goal post shifting please.

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

'Intentional' obsolescence matters not in my legal view. Because Apple are already undermining the performance of their product within the 2 year warranty period - regardless of the circumstances - and therefore are in breach of commercial contract with consumers in the EU/EEA.

 

For this reason - regardless of the French or Italian national laws - I believe Apple are breaking EU/EEA law.

 

I could technically demand Apple replace the battery and I believe they would be obligated to do so after 12 months and I should have ZERO loss in advertised performance. Or I am entitled to a free refund under contract.

 

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

 

But you claimed Apple was intentionally making phones obsolete, irrespective of what the law says.  This is false.  Will you retract that claim?

[mark_cameron]

2 minutes ago, Commodus said:

But you claimed Apple was intentionally making phones obsolete, irrespective of what the law says.  This is false.  Will you retract that claim?

No because there is ongoing French and Italian investigations looking into Apple's business practices in this area. There is ample suspicion and some evidence to suggest Apple is 'intentionally' obsoleting phones. In an effort to make Consumers in Europe have to replace them sooner.

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

No because there is ongoing French and Italian investigations looking into Apple's business practices in this area. There is ample suspicion and some evidence to suggest Apple is 'intentionally' obsoleting phones.

Maybe by issuing software updates that may be a bit much for older hardware to run efficiently, but not through the battery fiasco.

 

As far as I know, Apple screwed up big by not telling people about it until confronted. While that may not have been their intent, some people may have bought a new iPhone because of it, unaware that it was only from a degraded battery

[mark_cameron]

4 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Maybe by issuing software updates that may be a bit much for older hardware to run efficiently, but not through the battery fiasco.

 

As far as I know, Apple screwed up big by not telling people about it until confronted. While that may not have been their intent, some people may have bought a new iPhone because of it, unaware that it was only from a degraded battery

Agreed.

 

Plus there is a MINIMUM by EU law - 2 year warranty on all goods and contracts.

 

If this is within 2 years what Apple has done is contrary to the consumer contracts people sign when taking out the phone.

[Commodus]

Just now, mark_cameron said:

No because there is ongoing French and Italian investigations looking into Apple's business practices in this area. There is ample suspicion and some evidence to suggest Apple is 'intentionally' obsoleting phones.

The air quotes suggest you're still being disingenuous.  You know as well as I do that it's very unlikely Apple purposefully set out to drive premature phone upgrades.  Why would it only affect a handful of models, with others from the same period unaffected?  Your original post directly asserted that Apple would intentionally obsolete any phone if it meant driving sales, which isn't true.

[mark_cameron]

2 minutes ago, Commodus said:

The air quotes suggest you're still being disingenuous.  You know as well as I do that it's very unlikely Apple purposefully set out to drive premature phone upgrades.  Why would it only affect a handful of models, with others from the same period unaffected?  Your original post directly asserted that Apple would intentionally obsolete any phone if it meant driving sales, which isn't true.

I take a very dim view as to potentially seeing European consumers ripped off as opposed to people in North America where most of these technology conglomerates are based.

 

Apple was in receipt of payments from Qualcomm and no doubt will play the victim in all this.

[Morgan Everett]

21 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

I could technically demand Apple replace the battery and I believe they would be obligated to do so after 12 months and I should have ZERO loss in advertised performance. Or I am entitled to a free refund under contract.

 

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

 

Under British law, after 6 months it would be up to you to prove that the battery was defective from the beginning (as is explained in the material you link to). And that's no easy thing, often. 

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

I take a very dim view as to potentially seeing European consumers ripped off as opposed to people in North America where most of these technology conglomerates are based.

 

Apple was in receipt of payments from Qualcomm and no doubt will play the victim in all this.

No one is arguing whether or not Apple should get in legal trouble here. The problem is solely that it's not planned obsolescence like you want it to be. 

 

Oh and in terms of the North Americans not caring about consumer rights..... You do realize that your better warranties are subsidized by higher prices... Right? You're not actually getting more from these companies.

[Carclis]

Not really surprising considering how few models Apple has to choose from. I reckon it's about half the selection when you compare to somebody else like Samsung, from stores near me anyways. It's interesting to note that the article still remains positive despite market-share decreasing YoY and the older models having greater popularity compared to previous years. In fact if you compare the Q1 sales performance of 8/+ and X  to that of the 7/+ of Q1 last year you'll find that overall sales are down 5.5%. The X alone is 9% below last years flagship.

[maartendc]

I have to say, anecdotally this is a very popular phone. A lot of my friends and colleagues have the iPhone X. Surprisingly, considering the price tag! Never thought this phone would be this popular. I would assume more people would have gone for the iPhone 8.

 

I guess people like spending a lot of money. I could NEVER see myself spending this much on a phone. The risk of losing / breaking / theft is just too big.

 

hell, a colleague of mine is on her second iPhone X, after the first got stolen, and she just cracked the screen on the second one

Spoiler