I have friends who sent their Mac back under warranty and were told it was moisture damage. Husband & wife both blamed each other for spilling something on it, and both claimed innocence. It is in a room they don’t eat or drink in. They were told to buy a new one, which they did. Perhaps this is Apple’s new way of doing business?
2 Likes
Apple, undermining relationships in their relentless pursuit of profit.
3 Likes
This does raise some major concerns.
Firstly, if an Apple MacBook failed because of working in a normal working environment where one could expect humidity (moisture in the air), this is a design fault of the computer as it is not fit for purpose under the Australian Consumer Law. It is not fit for purpose as a reasonable person would expect any computer, for work or personal use, to work in a range of environments where humidity can fluctuate. The same reasonable person would not expect a MacBook to be kept only in a low or dehumidified environment. (It is worth noting that Apple advertises that the MacBook can be used in a wide range of environments, from kitchen benches, the office, outdoors etc).
Secondly. Apple is relying on a sensor which is not only triggered by liquids, but potentially by humidity. This means that their processes to assess the cause of a fault is flawed and gives them the opportunity to push blame to the consumer for a fault, when some faults are likely be due to the computer not being fit for purpose. In such, they are not meeting their obligations under the Australian Consumer Law.
It should be relatively easy to determine a liquid spill as most liquid spills will leave residues of the spill. This will be stains, stickiness, water spots, residues etc. Relying solely on a sensor sniffs of the conclusion you have made, that it is easier to make decisions in their interest rather than that required by law or in the interests of the consumer.
6 Likes
Or ….?
Can we suggest it is speculative.
In a similar way to Apple speculating that a water sensitive indicator included in a device build is proof the failure has been caused by moisture.
The alternatives may both be correct at the same time. Apple can say the cat is long passed, but even they are not truely looking inside to identify which component has failed and demonstrate how moisture caused the failure. MacBooks should be no more susceptible to failure due to local environmental conditions than any other laptop brand/product. Are Apple’s other products including iPads any different in reliability or failures?
Per the ACL, the issue is well summarised by @phb prior post.
3 Likes
I once took an iPhone to have the battery replaced at an Apple Store as the battery capacity had slipped below the standard they set for free replacement (80% within the 2 years of warranty period or if covered by AppleCare+), in my case it was covered by AppleCare+. When examining it prior to determining whether it would be covered under the policy, the Apple employee removed the SIM slide and looked in the hole to determine if the water indicator had been activated, it had not so the repair was free for me. I do not know what they use as an indicator, but it seems it is visible to someone in the know without removing the cover of the device in certain products.
Is it accurate? That is hard to know if we do not have the knowledge of what they use and any testing results of it’s accuracy. At the moment we are largely in the dark about their processes and accuracy of the result they rely on. It seems the only way to get any certainty is to test the process/processes by using the ACL systems that have been legislated…the use of Civil and Administrative Tribunals (CAT), complaints to the ACCC and Offices of Fair Trading, even perhaps the use of higher Courts than the CATs are all steps that may need to be applied to get any real certainty to the issue that has been raised. We can speculate around what has happened, this however is not going to resolve the issue for those who feel they have been wronged by the outcome. This use of the ACL systems is the only way to get try to get results particularly in light of what seems to be an apparent policy of secrecy by Apple about what exactly the assessment entailed beyond what a few pictures showed that seems at odds with the state of the device/devices when received back by the user/users.
3 Likes
Unfortunately for any hapless owners who are reasonably confident they have not immersed or spilt liquid over their MacBook. It is going to take sufficient numbers to go down the path you suggest to establish the evidence required to drag the ACCC and or Apple to a conclusion.
The consumer in Apple’s opinion is responsible (guilty) until proven blameless (innocent). Apple has previous form in the USA, Australia and …. for all the wrong reasons.
P.S.
Despite the latest iphone being supposedly water proof and drop protected, Apple has not stepped up to offer similar for their laptop options. Surprising if water or moisture ingress is such a significant reason for the failure of Macbooks. Failures Apple does not cover under warranty or Apple Care plans.
1 Like
Louis Rothmann in the US has posted to you tube frequently about issues with apple products. I know he posted about the humidity issue - maybe he has in the following video, but it does give you an idea:
4 Likes
This is appalling. My daughter took her laptop in after issues and they claimed water damage which it had not had. She lived opposite Coogee Beach at the time and I wondered about corrosion from that. They seem to hold all the power.
2 Likes
One way to frame the consumer argument?
For consumers saying with confidence, reliably and honestly they have only ever used the Apple product as an everyday user would.
Is Apple opening an argument the product when used by a consumer as the consumer would expect to be able to use the MacBook is not fit for purpose? IE Apple’s technology is evidence a level of moisture can occur in fair and proper use for which Apple cannot assure the product is suitable. It’s a simple acceptance of Apple’s opinion of the root cause of each product failure.
Apple do hold the knowledge of how the detection system functions. Apple appear to not always investigate further whether in every instance the failure experienced by the owner is genuinely attributable to moisture. It’s an assumption by Apple that it can only be so.
If Apple’s expertise could be shown to be correct most of the time. Can it be so in every instance? What does that say to the customers whose products have failed for some other product defect unrelated, when Apple’s moisture indication has been triggered. Subsequently the customer is being refused a warranty repair.
As consumers we don’t know how many MacBooks sold in Australia have failures in the first few years of use. We don’t know how many are refused warranty due to the moisture indicators. We don’t know the nature of the physical defect or failure identified in each instance. Something that would possibly point to a particular product manufacturing defect, or indeed a deficiency in the product that identifies the true cause of the product susceptibility.
Does Google search highlight this Choice topic, or is it lost behind all the other hits related to Apple?
1 Like
A search of “Apple Claimed Liquid Damage” gives plenty of hits where users are claiming that the assertion by Apple that the phone was damaged by water is false. Some of the hits from the search are on the Apple support site. I think it is worth users complaining to the Offices of Fair Trading and the ACCC about the issue. Enough complaints we would hope leads to investigation by the consumer protection authorities. If enough evidence of false claims are seen, then CHOICE themselves could lodge a Super Complaint (this would require CHOICE to undertake their own investigations to get evidence).
4 Likes
I listened to the video and found it very interesting. Thank heavens I have not experienced any of these problems and i feel sorry for any one who has. The only problem i had was with a relatively new iMac that stopped communicating with outside world. Took to Apple (Australia) and they confirmed that the I/O port was burned out. They were initially going to replace the I/O port under warranty but when I went to pick it up they said they were concerned that if the failure was a result of a power surge from a recent thunder storm we had experienced it may have caused other damage so they just replaced the entire motherboard.
I started with HP and MicroSoft for some years. When I have yet another problem I thought I would try Apple. What a wonderful decision. It has always been a case of plug it in and it works. You don’t have to get onto the internet and download the latest version of the Operating System. You want to run a printer. yes first choose one that’s Apple compatible, eg., Canon. You plug it in and it works. You don’t have to spend ages chasing up the latest drivers and installing them. Apple has a new update. You get a message to say there’s an update ad if you do nothing it’ll usually load overnight and installation just happens. Unlike MicroSoft which wants to take over your entire PC for the next 20 minutes.
Best of all the layout doesn’t change! A new OS is installed ad you open it up and everything is where it’s always been. Unlike MicroSoft where everything has been moved and all of the menus have been restructured and you have to learn the bloody system al over again.I’ll stick with Apple and take my chances.
3 Likes
I’m also very happy with my Apple devices, easy to use and trouble free.
Regarding Louis Rossmann, there’s a bit of self interest there because as we know he’s an independent repair technician and a ‘right to repair’ activist…
1 Like
You think “right to repair” is a bad thing?
