Apple price increase in 3,2,1...
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
It shouldn't. Apple were already legally liable to repair the products for that long (or longer) under Australian law. This just stops them misrepresenting their responsibilities.
(And if it leads to an increase in claims, which does force them to increase their prices, then yes, I agree: Apple products must have been underpriced originally. Or another way of looking at it is that it explains how they maintain their high margins)
Yes, like (probable) loss of market share when you increase prices arbitrarily. It all balances out eventually.
That said, in the case of mandatory warranty policy, I can definitely see some merit. It definitely seems like certain appliances are being sold in a lemon market [2] (think blenders, etc), where the market is flooded with sub-standard, cheap products. These can become the norm and set overly low price expectations, making it difficult for good products to compete.
How this applies to top-end smartphones is another discussion. I don't see why it should be difficult for a them to honor the policy, given their focus on quality. What's important is that all companies honor the mandate, and compete on an equal footing w.r.t. consumer expectations.
[1] http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/130201_Hot%20Tap%20Water%20...
Isn't that exactly what government is supposed to do?
Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about these types of things; on the one hand, they are probably correct, and they probably do more good than harm. On the other hand, having an over-regulated country might have a negative effect on both the competitiveness of the economy (companies having to navigate a minefield of regulations, driving costs up), as well as coming at the cost of personal freedoms (along the lines of: hey, if I want to have a tap running at 70 degrees, should I not be allowed to?). These are just silly examples, but I think you get the idea.
As for competitiveness, I'm not sure how having more burns victims being paid for by medicare is great for the economy, nor do I see how it's efficient for every homebuilder to be forced to go and become an expert on burns so they know exactly what delivery temperature their taps should be set to. It's far more efficient to have a central expert organisation do this research, then declare it the standard.
I don't agree with it all the time, of course. Bicycle helmets would be my #1 example, where I think the regulatory authorities have made a big mistake not considering all the externalities and second order ramifications of their policy.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/its-the-lun...
Meanwhile, in the bitcoin thread...
..wait, is that the sort of equal and opposite reaction you meant?