Retina battery replacement

Doylers

Cant seem to find this info online, basically what I want to know is what would it cost to get anew battery without applecare and with apple care. Trying to justify buying or not buying it

maggy_thatcher

Doylers wrote: »

Cant seem to find this info online, basically what I want to know is what would it cost to get anew battery without applecare and with apple care. Trying to justify buying or not buying it

http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/

cnocbui

Get yourself a jam jar and pop €4 a month into it. By the time you need a replacement battery you should have more than enough. By then you will have saved more than that amount worth of your time by not waiting for it do things.

Paddy@CIRL

Get Applecare with it mate, as if anything goes wrong with it it's going to cost more than the price of Applecare to put right.

cnocbui

You are covered for two years under statutory warranty, so effectively Applecare is only covering you for one additional year.

Doylers

cnocbui wrote: »

You are covered for two years under statutory warranty, so effectively Applecare is only covering you for one additional year.

Theres a thread in the legal form that the 2years doesnt apply here because the sales of goods act is better apparently?

Zapp Brannigan

Doylers wrote: »

Theres a thread in the legal form that the 2years doesnt apply here because the sales of goods act is better apparently?

I've never seen a definitive answer on these, but my personal opinion is that if I am covered by the EU or SoG Act, its going to be a hassle to get Apple to comply. All the while my shiny computer is broken. So I get Applecare to minimise the damage done to my productivity in work. Worth it for me.

cnocbui

Doylers wrote: »

Theres a thread in the legal form that the 2years doesnt apply here because the sales of goods act is better apparently?

I need to go and make it definitive them.

http://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-warranty/

Apple are very misleading and do their damn best to bury the information in the hope people won't find it and will then buy Applecare.

This is what got them the fine in Italy.

Doylers

cnocbui wrote: »

I need to go and make it definitive them.

http://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-warranty/

Apple are very misleading and do their damn best to bury the information in the hope people won't find it and will then buy Applecare.

This is what got them the fine in Italy.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80345475

The last post says we didnt bring in the EU law??? I might give the NCA a call and see what they say to me

whiterebel

Doylers wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80345475

The last post says we didnt bring in the EU law??? I might give the NCA a call and see what they say to me

Do, and let us know what they say, because they goes round and round the garden all the time. The only one that mentions the EU directive, is the European Consumer website.

cnocbui

Here we have an applicable Irish statute :

These Regulations are for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html

In 2003 we have the EU ticking off the Irish Government for not formally adopting Directive 1999/44/EC and issuing a clear threat:

The European Commission has sent 'Reasoned Opinions' to the governments of Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom over their apparent failure to implement the Guarantees Directive (1999/44/EC). This Directive, adopted in May 1999(see IP/99/332 ), sets out certain minimum legal rights for consumers buying goods in the EU. These include a right to return defective goods, or have them repaired or replaced, up to two years after delivery. Member States were obliged to implement the Directive by 1 January 2002. The eight Member States have yet to notify the Commission of the measures taken under their national law to implement the Directive. The sending of a 'Reason Opinion' is the second step in infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EU Treaty. If the Member States concerned are not able to assure the Commission that the consumer rights set out in the Directive are in fact implemented under their national law the next step will be for the Commission to lodge cases against them with the European Court of Justice.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/3&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Which is why Harney had Irish law adopt those provisions in 2003.

Doylers

cnocbui wrote: »

Here we have an applicable Irish statute :

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html

In 2003 we have the EU ticking off the Irish Government for not formally adopting Directive 1999/44/EC and issuing a clear threat:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/3&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Which is why Harney had Irish law adopt those provisions in 2003.

Right so it can be used here because I cant read most of that What do you quote the SoG or the Eu law if you were using it

whiterebel

cnocbui wrote: »

Here we have an applicable Irish statute :

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html

In 2003 we have the EU ticking off the Irish Government for not formally adopting Directive 1999/44/EC and issuing a clear threat:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/3&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Which is why Harney had Irish law adopt those provisions in 2003.

Problem with that is, as it says twice: (sorry 3 times)

"“Directive” means Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees1 ;"

And apparently that's what we didn't implement. As far as I am aware, we don't have to implement directives, and have ignored the ones that don't suit us for years.

cnocbui

The two words you highlight, are actually part of the full title of the actual directive:

National law and minimum protection
1. The rights resulting from this Directive shall be exercised without prejudice to other rights which the consumer may invoke under the national rules governing contractual or non-contractual liability.
2. Member States may adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions, compatible with the Treaty in the field covered by this Directive, to ensure a higher level of consumer protection.
Article 9
Member States shall take appropriate measures to inform the consumer of the national law transposing this Directive and shall encourage, where appropriate, professional organisations to inform consumers of their rights.
Article 10
The Annex to Directive 98/27/EC shall be completed as follows: "10. Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12).".
Article 11
Transposition
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 1 January 2002. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive, or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be adopted by Member States.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML

The Irish statue is using those words as they have been directed to. Note also that nothing in the EU Directive gives member states the option of watering down or excluding incorporation of any part of it. They basically say your own laws can be tougher, but not weaker.

The second quote in my previous post was an unequivocal threat that the recalcitrant countries had to adopt the directive formally or be prosecuted for not doing so. Nowhere have I seen or quoted anything which would give the Irish government room to slime out of any of it.

Why does one need any more proof that Apple has to honour the 2 year warranty than Apple's own assertion on their own website that they will do so? They can be held to that!

Show me any credible link or quote stating the Irish government were able to wriggle out of implementing the whole thing. As I said in another thread, the clue about compliance is in the name 'Directive' they aren't called 'suggestions.'

Just while we are on this topic. Part of the EU directive is that the Irish government has to take steps to inform the Irish people of their rights. Their response seems to have been to form the overpaid, underperforming waste of space agency responsible for this utter disgrace:

http://www.nca.ie/nca/guarantees-warranties

Where in that watered down mess is there any hard information like you having a 2 year warranty on goods? I'd prune that lot if it were up to me.

whiterebel

cnocbui wrote: »

The two words you highlight, are actually part of the full title of the actual directive:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML

The Irish statue is using those words as they have been directed to. Note also that nothing in the EU Directive gives member states the option of watering down or excluding incorporation of any part of it. They basically say your own laws can be tougher, but not weaker.

The second quote in my previous post was an unequivocal threat that the recalcitrant countries had to adopt the directive formally or be prosecuted for not doing so. Nowhere have I seen or quoted anything which would give the Irish government room to slime out of any of it.

Why does one need any more proof that Apple has to honour the 2 year warranty than Apple's own assertion on their own website that they will do so? They can be held to that!

Show me any credible link or quote stating the Irish government were able to wriggle out of implementing the whole thing. As I said in another thread, the clue about compliance is in the name 'Directive' they aren't called 'suggestions.'

Just while we are on this topic. Part of the EU directive is that the Irish government has to take steps to inform the Irish people of their rights. Their response seems to have been to form the overpaid, underperforming waste of space agency responsible for this utter disgrace:

http://www.nca.ie/nca/guarantees-warranties

Where in that watered down mess is there any hard information like you having a 2 year warranty on goods? I'd prune that lot if it were up to me.

So, in your opinion, we just implement every Directive that the EU lay down?
Why aren't the EU forcing us to change our Corporation Tax? Simple, they can't. Why didn't the UK implement the working time directives? Because they are not forced to do so. Conor Pope isn't part of the NCA and he has said for a long time that this was not implemented in Ireland.
Apple are a European seller, and I'd imagine its easier to do the same for all rather than leaving it a glaring deficiency for Ireland.

Doylers

Just bring to your attention this page http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/consumer_topics/buying_goods_services_en.htm . Says point blank you have 2 years?

whiterebel

This is what makes it so confusing - They don't mention buying in Ireland - "Planning a shopping trip in Europe? Or simply buying a product or service on holiday?"
And then the kicker..."The 2-year guarantee is an EU-wide minimum, and the laws in some EU countries may offer you longer limitation periods."

The reason we didn't implement the 2 year directly is because the Irish Government is of the opinion that we offer better than that already. And again, this is why the NCA state SoGA, and not the EU Directive. I notice no-one else has come back with anything concrete on this? If you look through the links on one of the previous posts, it shows the dates that countries implemented their relevant regulations. The UK doesn't mention the EU directive at all, instead implementing their Sale of Goods and Supply of services Act. I'd say the Irish Government are terrified of shops closing down left, right and centre if they effectively doubled the warranty at a stroke, and left the retailer holding the baby. Conor Pope was on about a story on Ray D'Arcy today, and went on about SoGA, never mention EU 2 years at all. Strange for a guy who's the Consumer champion.

Doylers

Right so it gets better lol I called the NCA and said whats the story with this EU law for 2 years guarantee. She didnt have info on it but what she did say was under the SoG act you can be covered up to 6 years. This depends on the expected life of the product. I said how could you determine the expected life of a laptop, to which she said you would have to ask apple.

So what I gathered is to email apple ask how long the avg life span of there product is and keep that email. Then if issues occurs in 4 years your still covered. I'll certainly give it a go.

whiterebel

Doylers wrote: »

Right so it gets better lol I called the NCA and said whats the story with this EU law for 2 years guarantee. She didnt have info on it but what she did say was under the SoG act you can be covered up to 6 years. This depends on the expected life of the product. I said how could you determine the expected life of a laptop, to which she said you would have to ask apple.

So what I gathered is to email apple ask how long the avg life span of there product is and keep that email. Then if issues occurs in 4 years your still covered. I'll certainly give it a go.

I don't see anyone sending you that info......:D

Doylers

Don't be so negative :P

whiterebel

Doylers wrote: »

Don't be so negative :P

Go on then, use your charm, and let us know how you get on.....:)