Norwegian government is now filing a major law suit for unethical practices committed by both Nokia and Sony Ericsson? I need a translator, please
By Stefan Constantinescu on Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 at 3:43 PM PST In Financial/Corporate News
I post this bit with hesitation since I’m not sure what is being said in this article. It’s not in a language I can understand so if one of my readers can email me a full translation I would HIGHLY appreciate it.
I’m going off the information that I found in this blog post at The Groupster which states:
If you are wondering who the guy in the picture is, its the Sales manager of Nokia (NYSE: NOK) telephones in Norway. What happened is that a trial opened in Norway in order to determine how much time a consumer has to complain about his cell phone.
What was exposed was a much darker secret about the cell phone industry, a secret which has long been speculated in Europe. There is now evidence that both Nokia and Sony Ericcson have been building their cell phones specifically to stop working after 3 – 4 years. Thus forcing the consumer to buy a new phone.
Even more disturbing is that according to high profile executives, the companies do not make any exceptions. Therefore it doesn’t matter how much you spend because it will be just the same. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn’t it?
The Norwegian government is now filing a major law suit for unethical practices of both Nokia and Sony Ericcson.
Hey,
I am the writer of the article. And I would like to clear some things up which might answer some of your questions. I misunderstood something but still its pretty bad. The story is how a norwegian organisation which focuses on consumer rights were sewing Nokia and Sony E. for having to short of a waranty on cell phone problems. The Norwegian government demands a five years warranty. During the trial people from both Nokia and Sony E. admitted that using the phone on a normal capacity gave their phone a 3 – 4 years life span before they stopped working. They then claimed that its because people now a days use their phone too much. Here comes the part which I misunderstood… The Oslo court where the hearing took place has transferred the case to the national court where Nokia and Sony E. will be put under deep investigation since now the question of whether it is infact done deliberatly comes into play. Regardless they seem to be ruling that the fact that Nokia and Sony E. are aware of the short lifespan and have never spoken about it before is grounds for lack of ethics and a law suit.
Hope this clears things up and if you have any question do not hesitate, if you want I will keep you updated on how the story develops. Appologise for the misunderstanding.
Christian
I sent an email to the guy who wrote the article in the newspaper, I’ll wait to see if he can get me a translation too.
I appreciate you coming to clarify this however!
I don’t know anything about this case, but I know a little something about manufacturing specifications. The average lifetime for a mobile device in the wealthier parts of the world is 24 months. Not because the device fails, but because it is replaced. (Personally, I have a still-active metal [!] Nokia phone from 7 years ago, so I know there are exceptions.)
Now, think of this from the manufacturers point of view. They need to spec out the components for a device. They need to find a balance between cost (whether it’s money cost, size cost, or labor cost) and actual usage case scenarios. Because the consumer wants the lowest possible price, and the best possible experience.
If the manufacturer knows that 60% of users will dump their phones in a drawer and never use them again after 2 years, 75% will stop using after 3 years, and 92% by 4 years (I made those numbers up to illustrate), then it becomes very difficult for them to justify spending more money or space on the device in order to keep it functioning for 7-10 years.
I suppose that an annoyed customer might call that “intentionally building the devices to stop working after 3 or 4 years”, but that sounds wrong to me. I think that “intentionally demanding a 36-48 month average time-to-failure in order to accomodate most user needs at a reasonable cost” a lot more likely.
Obviously, if there are laws that require a 5-year warranty (as claimed), then the manufacturer also has to balance their obligation to service and/or replace the devices if they start to fail, but that might be an acceptable trade-off for them: few of those devices will be in use, and of them, most will probably be working just fine. For the rest — well, the company will take care of it (we hope).
I don’t know that this is truly the thinking behind the issue, but I do think it’s something people should take into account, just to be fair.
Dear Sarah,
I definately agree with you on that one, as a matter of fact the representative for Nokia in norway did state that the average consumer only kept the cell phone for one or two years. However the defence replied with the fact that not everybody does so and that the big ‘crime’ being commited is not notifying the consumer of the life span itself. I think the same can be applied to almost every product, just because a majority of people do something should not mean we should expect inferior quality, regardless of what we pay.
In anycase Ill keep on updating the story on The Groupster, and will notify you guys when developments in the case arrise.
All the best.
Thank you, to the both of you, for the clarification of all this information. I’ll post an update on this soon enough.
Hey there has been an update on the story and I have posted it on The Groupster.