Apple's release of the iOS5 software affected the battery life of some iPhones, iPads and iPods provides a clear example of how software will contain bugs when first delivered and that the supplier should be given the opportunity to correct the errors.
Can you imagine if everyone experiencing problems with their Apple products had a right to claim as soon as the bugs in the update came to light? When put into a context such as this, it seems like the only sensible answer was to allow Apple the time to apply a fix.
The questions that then arise are: how much time should Apple be allowed to fix the problems; how long is it reasonable to expect people to put up with a mobile that has a battery life of half a day?
In this case such questions have not been answered as Apple has released an update to resolve the bugs in the software upgrade.
Perhaps this is the reason that so few cases come before the courts - they are resolved by the supplier fixing the defect to a point where the customer is satisfied.
For more info: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8866918/Apple-software-bug-causing-iPhone-battery-problems.html
The problem seems to be, in terms of the battery, that some people are experiencing poor battery life and others are not, and that it depends on the settings, apps and (to an extent) usage of the device, rather than it being a hardware problem. For some, a clean wipe of the device, followed by a reinstallation of the various apps and configuration settings, seems to be solving the problem.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, if I had bought a device with an advertised battery life of days, and found that I only had a few hours, I would expect that consumer protection law would cover me - in particular, that the device (including both the software and the hardware, working together) was not a satisfactory quality, in that it was no-where close to its advertised time. Provided that I bring the device back soon after purchase, I would certainly have a legitimate expectation of a refund, if I wanted one.
If one were to spend £700 or so on a device, I would not consider it reasonable for basic functionality - such as operating duration of the device - to be so different to the advertised figure, and so I would not consider it reasonable to give Apple the opportunity of developing a software update.
Likewise, whilst a repair is a possible remedy under SoGA, I would have thought that this was meant to be retightening a leg on a table, or replacing a faulty dial on a radio, rather than writing software patches for the entire userbase - we also run up against the question of what would constitute a reasonable time for a repair.
Oddly enough, I'm also of the view that incredibly complicated and powerful devices are being made available at low prices - whilst not perhaps low to those buying them, the capabilities of a modern computer are quite incredible for the price paid. To this end, I do think that developers and manufacturers should have a degree of leeway in providing post-release updates, tackling problems as they came along. The alternative would be to force everyone to guarantee that they were releasing software without bugs from the onset, which would drive up the price of the systems and software considerably, for all by the most basic software - perhaps there's a basic economic issue here, that we trade off lower acquisition cost for updates to fix problems.
[If the problems were affecting Android, at least one would be able to fix the problems themselves, thanks to the availability of the source code - either changing the code oneself, or paying someone to do it... but hardly attractive in a consumer setting.]
I suspect claims of battery life for phones are similar to car manufacturers mileage claims or claims relating to broadband speed. There are, as Neil said, so many variables it could be difficult to prove a defect.
ReplyDeleteAnother feature of software and software related products such as the Iphone is that they are not static. If I buy a television set that generally is it. What I take home is what I get. We continually get software and firmware upgrades. Given that, it might be difficult to argue for a right immediately to reject a phone. It might be suggested that buyers recognise that what they are getting is not the finished object (if there ever is such a thing)
It always surprises me that there is so little case law on the point. Anyone feel like taking on Apple?
ReplyDeleteGiven that, it might be difficult to argue for a right immediately to reject a phone.
However, this leads to a perhaps odd situation, in which someone buying a cheap phone, where updates are less likely, might be considered more deserving of consumer protection than someone buying an expensive phone, for which updates are released.
The more you spend, the less protection you get...
It is an odd situation which is perhaps created not by the disparity in consumer protection legislation, but more so by the likes of Apple who (to a degree) works with its customers to ensure its products work. The reasons for this may lie in reputational issues more than anything else but if they work for the consumer then surely it’s a good situation. The question follows, is this an adequate remedy?
ReplyDelete