Saturday
Oct062012
Lightning connectors again
Saturday, October 6, 2012 at 2:20AM Some decent thoughts from Neil on the Apple Lightning Connector issue-
This is one the situations in which I'd see Apple needing an objective justification for its behaviour, so that it is not considered anti-competitive. Apple cannot protect the shape of the cable by copyright or a design right, and it seems that putting an authentication chip in the cable simply subverts this mechanism, which existed to ensure consumer choice and prevent the blocking of competition in making third party alternatives.
in All News
All News
Reader Comments (17)
Neil's right, just as he was right a while ago when he suggested that the closed-shop nature of iTunes was anti-competitive.
I do wonder how Apple's escaped the kind of scrutiny MS has been under for over a decade. They're now a long long way from having a monopoly in the smartphone market, but for iPhone users they've monopolised wherever they can. As I understand it they're not allowed to use their smartphone sales to artificially help other areas of the business, such as music, video, book and app sales. By tying you into iTunes they're clearly doing that and have been for years, and yet somehow they get away with it. They've even tried to brick jail-broken iPhones, and also tried (and failed) to have jail-breaking declared illegal in the US.
Microsoft bundles a browser into the OS, still allowing you to install an alternative, and gets caned again and again. I agree they should be caned, but I don't believe they should be alone.
And in the tablet market Apple pretty much still has a monopoly and should be getting a lot of grief about its anti-competitive practices there.
But they keep getting away with it. If they didn't I doubt they'd have the balls to lock down peripherals like this.
I should have added "Of course, it depends on what that chip does..."
The chip is upper level alien technology. Hence why Apple can't let anyone make adapters.
What I don't get is the ability for Apple to give 1 year garantee on a product when the EU law demands 2 years. And nobody does anything... so, Apple are above the law?
The last Mac I bought they said I had 1 year garantee but could extend it to two by entering their programme. What's that?
This is a very timely comment, Rui — Italy has already taken action, and I believe other member states are too.
Unfortunately, there's quite a lot of somewhat misleading commentary on what the law actually requires here when people speak of a "two year warranty", so let's have a quick look into it :)
Directive 1999/44/EC sets out rules on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods, and, in particular, guarantees. You can find local language copies of the directive here.
The first thing to bear in mind is that it is a directive, and not a regulation - this means that member states have to pass legislation to implement the provisions of the directive; it does not come into force automatically. (There are some slightly special cases, when a directive may actually have some form of direct effect, but they do not apply here.) So just because the directive says something, it does not mean that your local legislation says the same — directives are aimed at harmonisation, not standardisation. This is quite important from an English point of view, which I'll mention a bit later.
Article 2 of the directive provides that, amongst other things, consumer goods are presumed to be in conformity with the contract if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same type are normally used. In other words, a blender should be capable of blending fruit and vegetables, but don't be surprised if it breaks if you try to use it to blend rocks. If, however, you have asked the retailer "will this blend rocks?" and the retailer says it would, you are also covered (Art. 2(2)(b))
Article 3 provides the impact of this — the seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered. There's the key point: lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered. Article 3 goes on to set out the various remedies available.
Here's the bit that most people take as being a two year warranty: Article 5 provides that the seller shall be liable for this lack of conformity where it becomes apparent within two years as from the delivery of the goods.
This means that, if the goods are supplied in a condition whereby they are not fit for the purpose for which they are commonly supplied, you have up to two years to claim redress from the supplier, provided that you tell the seller within two months of noticing the problem. If you ignore the problem for two months and a day, the seller is no longer liable to offer redress under the provisions of the directive.
There are two key things to note here:
- it relates to faults present at the point of delivery. To make a claim, the fault has to be a latent fault, in that it existed when the goods were delivered. This would likely include substandard components, which, for example, should have lasted for longer than they did (based on knowledge at the time of the supply).
- for the first six months from the date of supply, the onus is on the seller to prove that the goods were not faulty (Art. 5(3)); the goods are presumed faulty unless the seller can prove otherwise. After those six months, the onus is on the consumer to prove that the goods were faulty, which can be a bit difficult.
So hopefully that helps clarify the position under the directive. Notably, it does not require that the seller offers a technical support line, or "we'll answer any question about the product or how to use it" or anything like that. Just a simple right of redress for a latent fault.
Now, as I said earlier, it's up to each country to implement this legislation. In the UK, we have the Sale of Goods Act (which predated the directive by quite some time). Notably, it makes no reference to the two year period — and that's because we have another law in the UK, called the Limitation Act 1980, which provides that claims for breach of contract (which includes this sort of lack of fitness for purpose described here) must be made within six years of the date of the breach — instead of two years from the date of supply as set out in the directive, UK consumers have six years. Different countries may have different requirements, but they cannot be less than two years without breaching treaty obligations to implement the directive.
The last point to make is this, and it's really a restatement of what I've already said: this does not mean that all goods are warranted for six years. It may be perfectly reasonable for something to stop working after a couple of years — if you've been to Poundland and spent £1 on a pair of earphones, it's not reasonable (in my view) to think that they will last six years. You'd have to determine what their reasonable life expectancy was. If they break before that, then you should have a right to a remedy; if they break after that, you don't — the six year limitation period is not a warranty for six years.
So what does this mean in terms of Apple?
Apple, like anyone else selling to a consumer in the UK, is bound by UK law. They are no different. So, irrespective of what Apple might be saying about its one year "special protection" offering, you have your rights as a consumer.
Now, as above, these rights do not extend to everything which Apple offers for that first year; Apple is choosing to give you more than you are entitled to at law.
As such, you are, in effect, getting two things:
a.) Your rights as a consumer; and
b.) Some additional benefits from Apple, for the first year and extendable to three.
The perceived problem is that Apple is very good at talking about b.), but seems less good at talking about a.). It's there on the Apple website if you dig, but it's not made clear. It's not that your rights are not there, but that Apple does not talk about them.
Damn! I was just about to write exactly the same thing Neil...
Just stick it on the front page tomorrow and claim you wrote it :)
Really, it's not going to take someone long to figure out the authentication chip signal and learn how to fake it. On the other hand, Apple better get moving with licensing 3rd party vendors or they will be more annoyed than they already are. Christmas is coming.
Bob doing so would probably breach the US's DMCA and the equivalents of other countries. Therefore it'd be illegal to make or sell them in a fair few western countries.
Neil there's a thin line between geek and nerd ;o)
Interesting read though; so all this talk of two year warranties (which I've also heard in relation to hard disk warranties) is just another piece of unsubstantiated misinformation. Shame.
The iOS dock connector is probably the most copied connector in the world. Take a look at all the knockoffs on Dealextreme.com for a start.
I think Apple genuinely wants the new lightning port to just work. Approving the companies that make it is one step in that direction. After all if something were to short or not work correctly people will look to Apple, not the dodgy company that made it.
It's not anti-compettitive as long as Apple genuinely allows other companies to make it. So whilst us geeks can conjure up conspiracy theories and anticompettitive moaning the proof will be in what happens in the coming year. I highly doubt they are going to keep the connector to themselves as it is the ecosystem of peripherals that is still unmatched by any android phone that keeps apple ahead.
Totally agree. Apple and its users would lose out if they lost something that worked and only offered a lesser solution. Then again, Apple Maps...
It depends on what it's there for, really; the DMCA, and similar provisions of EU law, deal with technical measures to protect copyright works. It might be an expandable notion, but I don't see an obvious fit.
Where does being a lawyer fit on that spectrum? ;)
I'm less convinced, but more at high level principles than legal wrangling — is there an objective technical reason for the chip's presence? If so, then, fine. But if it's to make it harder to copy, or to increase the price of copies to keep the market price of accessories relatively high, that's less beneficial to society, to my mind.
A bit of a misunderstanding, most likely. For a hard drive, I reckon you'd have a reasonably good chance arguing in court that a hard drive should last more than a couple of years of reasonable usage anyway.
@Neil with the DMCA I was specifically thinking of the fact that it makes it illegal to circumvent encryption. We don't know that there's any encryption done by the chip; however it apparently performs authentication and that typically involves some form of encryption.
@David all they needed to do was to introduce a "Made for iPhone" certification programme such as the ones MS has done. Then if you want the reassurance you buy a certified dock and if you want to save a few quid you don't. To be honest I'd put far more weight in the customer reviews on Amazon to guide my purchase.
I don't suppose Apple wants to make all Apple peripherals; it just wants control over them and their manufacturers plus maybe a cut of the profits. Think apps in iTunes.
Are dodgy docks a common problem for Apple devices? Because in fixing this problem Apple's made sure that there won't be any iPhone 5 docks this year. Apparently Apple has yet to begin the process for approving factories to make docks, and once approval has been given there'll still be some time needed to design the docks, tool-up and start making them.
The DMCA provision deals with the circumvention of technological measures protecting a copyright work — it's not a blanket restriction on circumventing encryption. As you say, it depends on what that function of the chip does.
If you haven't see it, you can find it here.
Wow Neil and not copy/paste ;-) thanks for the clarification.
Apple are suposed to not be above the law of each country, that's for sure... but they are.
What I can say for sure in Portugal is that our Consumer protector agency has filed a case on this matter and is pending reply. In Portugal EVERY item has 2 years warantee, except Apple's. Even the employers aknowledge that - I spoke to Apple retailers. In fact we have a period of 14 days to return ANY product if we don't like it, except Apple products, again. The Vodafone person when I asked just said: you can return any phone on our shop provided it's not an iPhone - you can't return it, their policy don't allow it. I stated about OUR law and she agreed, but said it was the policy - I could file a case against Apple. Yeah, right.
So, laws are for everyone to comply, except Apple I guess.
Thanks Neil; I'd forgotten that bit. Having said that, given that Apple has patented the unpatentable and copyright law is also broken what's the betting it'd still manage to take someone to court for copying the chip? Especially in California.
Remember Apple doesn't have to win; very few of the manufacturers would have the cash to survive a court case agaist Apple.