iMac G4 Model M6498 EMC #1873 power supply

[Franc Zabkar]

I've been given a dead (no power up) iMac G4 Model M6498 EMC #1873 to
repair. I've already dismantled the unit and removed all major
components, including the 2-piece PSU (PFC + DC/DC PCBs). To assist me
in my quoting, I've contacted Apple on 133622 with a view to pricing a
replacement PSU. Unsurprisingly I wound up speaking to somebody in
India who of course was unable to help me, but who, despite my
protestations, diverted my request to some Australian sales droid, who
also was unable to help. Instead he gave me the number of a local
repairer, Mac1. Mac1 in turn told me that they would not supply the
spare part on its own, but insisted that their technicians install it
whether I wanted them to or not. Does current NSW or Commonwealth
legislation allow them to get away with this?


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Phil Allison]

"Franc Zabkar"

I've been given a dead (no power up) iMac G4 Model M6498 EMC #1873 to
repair. I've already dismantled the unit and removed all major
components, including the 2-piece PSU (PFC + DC/DC PCBs). To assist me
in my quoting, I've contacted Apple on 133622 with a view to pricing a
replacement PSU. Unsurprisingly I wound up speaking to somebody in
India who of course was unable to help me, but who, despite my
protestations, diverted my request to some Australian sales droid, who
also was unable to help. Instead he gave me the number of a local
repairer, Mac1. Mac1 in turn told me that they would not supply the
spare part on its own, but insisted that their technicians install it
whether I wanted them to or not. Does current NSW or Commonwealth
legislation allow them to get away with this?

** Mac1 http://www.mac1.com.au/support.shtml is an authorised dealer and
service centre for Apple - so no way on earth are they obliged to supply
spare parts or tech info to anyone like Frank Zabkar competing with them.

The TPA requires that service facilities and essential spares be "available"
for ( repairable) products for a reasonable time - it does *not* say they
must be made available for sale either to owners or outsiders. It also does
*not* say the price of such spares must be competitive.

The spares and service facilities need not even be in Australia - items
could be sent OS for repair and /or spares obtained from OS as and when
needed.




................ Phil

 

[colin beeforth]

Hi Frank,

I've run into this problem before with Palm. I owned the unit, and wanted
to repair it myself. Their attitude is apparently legal, but it stinks
big time. I ended up arguing with their top man in Australia, saying it
was my device, I had the skills to do it and needed one lousy
special component to fix it. They couldn't care less. I found a similar
component, a memory backup super cap, and squeezed it into the case - job
done. Needless to say, Palm will never get money or recommendation from me
ever again. I now use a Compaq organiser.

As far as your repair problem goes, I'd give it back to the customer and
say "take it to Mac1" or whoever. That way, you can explain it is a
closed shop, and you may get the customer back with other gear later, as
you have been helpful and truthful.

If you decide to repair it, you could be stuck with lots of lost time and
no repair bill for the customer if you can't get parts. It's a risky area
for a small service shop. I used to work in the field. I also know how
irritating this is, but the customer will blame you if you cannot fix it.
If Mac1 charges them a fortune, they will blame Mac1, not you.

It boils down to how you want to lose in this game - a minimum
cost, or a maximum cost. A crummy situation, but it's what you gotta face
in that kind of business.

Good luck with it mate, Cheers, Colin

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Hi Frank,

I've run into this problem before with Palm. I owned the unit, and wanted
to repair it myself. Their attitude is apparently legal, but it stinks
big time. I ended up arguing with their top man in Australia, saying it
was my device, I had the skills to do it and needed one lousy
special component to fix it. They couldn't care less.

The annoying thing for me is that the "technician" who would have
ended up doing the job would probably have been no more skilled than
an orangutan trained in the use of a screwdriver.

I found a similar
component, a memory backup super cap, and squeezed it into the case - job
done. Needless to say, Palm will never get money or recommendation from me
ever again. I now use a Compaq organiser.

As far as your repair problem goes, I'd give it back to the customer and
say "take it to Mac1" or whoever. That way, you can explain it is a
closed shop, and you may get the customer back with other gear later, as
you have been helpful and truthful.

If you decide to repair it, you could be stuck with lots of lost time and
no repair bill for the customer if you can't get parts. It's a risky area
for a small service shop. I used to work in the field. I also know how
irritating this is, but the customer will blame you if you cannot fix it.
If Mac1 charges them a fortune, they will blame Mac1, not you.

Actually this kind of proprietary, closed shop attitude worked in my
favour in years past. I earned a good living offering component level
repair to minicomputer clients who would otherwise have been
slaughtered by the original vendor. However in those days most digital
logic was standard TTL and CMOS in leaded DIPs and there was
comparatively little VLSI or smt.

It boils down to how you want to lose in this game - a minimum
cost, or a maximum cost. A crummy situation, but it's what you gotta face
in that kind of business.

Good luck with it mate, Cheers, Colin

Well, the job was for a former workmate, so the actual labour cost was
not a big factor. In any case the fault turned out to be an open 1M
resistor on the DC/DC board. My friend's happy, but Mac1 will never
get any business or positive recommendations from me, if only on
principle. I will still follow this matter through with the ACCC just
to see where the law stands today.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Phil Allison]

"Franc Zabkar"

My friend's happy, but Mac1 will never
get any business or positive recommendations from me, if only on
principle. I will still follow this matter through with the ACCC just
to see where the law stands today.

** Complete waste of your time and theirs - the law has not and is not
about to change.

No business has to supply its competitors.

You would not want that law changed either.





.............. Phil

 

[Dennis Nolan]

"Franc Zabkar"




** Mac1 http://www.mac1.com.au/support.shtml is an authorised dealer and
service centre for Apple - so no way on earth are they obliged to supply
spare parts or tech info to anyone like Frank Zabkar competing with them.

The TPA requires that service facilities and essential spares be "available"
for ( repairable) products for a reasonable time - it does *not* say they
must be made available for sale either to owners or outsiders. It also does
*not* say the price of such spares must be competitive.

The spares and service facilities need not even be in Australia - items
could be sent OS for repair and /or spares obtained from OS as and when
needed.




............... Phil

Actually most of the references I've seen on the subject define
defective service quality to include neglecting to provide reasonable
repair facilities or reasonable spare parts.
So the question is: Is the company being unreasonable when refusing to
supply a spare part to a consumer or another service organization.

I've never had a problem getting parts or service drawings from
suppliers even when they cite manufacturer confidentiality or other
reasons. I just write to them giving the details of the equipment, what
I want, and what I want it for and explain that their trade secrets etc
are safe, and suggest that they might like to refer to the current Fair
Trading Regulations and Consumer Protection legislation before refusing
to supply.
But I would write to Apple with a copy to Imac

Regards
Dennis.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dennis Nolan"

Actually most of the references I've seen on the subject define defective
service quality to include neglecting to provide reasonable repair
facilities or reasonable spare parts.
So the question is: Is the company being unreasonable when refusing to
supply a spare part to a consumer or another service organization.

** The answer is a great big NO when a repair service is available from
them or an agent.

I've never had a problem getting parts or service drawings from suppliers
even when they cite manufacturer confidentiality or other reasons. I just
write to them giving the details of the equipment, what I want, and what I
want it for and explain that their trade secrets etc are safe, and
suggest that they might like to refer to the current Fair Trading
Regulations and Consumer Protection legislation before refusing to supply.

** Smartarse and pointless.





............. Phil

 

[Dennis Nolan]

"Dennis Nolan"




** The answer is a great big NO when a repair service is available from
them or an agent.

Your opinion may be that it is unreasonable to provide a circuit board
to a customer or competitor because a repair service is provided by the
manufacturer, importer, wholesaler, retailer or agent, however that will
surely bring in the restriction of trade provisions of the legislation.
Not even car manufacturers could get away with that.

** Smartarse and pointless.

Well it might be smartarse, but as it works, it is hardly pointless.

............ Phil

However sy-Phil-is if you can provide any sources to back up your
opinion I'm willing to re-evaluate my opinion.

Regards
Dennis.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dennis Nolan"

Your opinion may be that it is unreasonable to provide a circuit board to
a customer or competitor because a repair service is provided by the
manufacturer, importer, wholesaler, retailer or agent, however that will
surely bring in the restriction of trade provisions of the legislation.
Not even car manufacturers could get away with that.

** No business is required to supply its competitors - that is in the
law.

That is NOT an unreasonable restriction of trade.

It is an utterly reasonable one.

Well it might be smartarse, but as it works, it is hardly pointless.

** It does not work for people in the repair businesses - you are
obviously not.

However sy-Phil-is if you can provide any sources to back up your opinion
I'm willing to re-evaluate my opinion.

** Exclusive repair arrangements ( or closed shops) are widespread and
considered legal.

Prove otherwise in the Federal Courts anytime - arsehole.






.............. Phil

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Actually most of the references I've seen on the subject define
defective service quality to include neglecting to provide reasonable
repair facilities or reasonable spare parts.
So the question is: Is the company being unreasonable when refusing to
supply a spare part to a consumer or another service organization.

I've never had a problem getting parts or service drawings from
suppliers even when they cite manufacturer confidentiality or other
reasons. I just write to them giving the details of the equipment, what
I want, and what I want it for and explain that their trade secrets etc
are safe, and suggest that they might like to refer to the current Fair
Trading Regulations and Consumer Protection legislation before refusing
to supply.
But I would write to Apple with a copy to Imac

Regards
Dennis.

Thanks, I'll do that, if only to vent my displeasure.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Dennis Nolan]

"Dennis Nolan"




** No business is required to supply its competitors - that is in the
law.

Well actually sy-Phil-is it isn't

I don't really need to prove it, but just for you sy-Phil-is, here is an
extract from section 47 of The Trade Practices Act.


SECTION 47 EXCLUSIVE DEALING

47(1) [Exclusive dealing prohibited]

Subject to this section, a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce,
engage in the practice of exclusive dealing.

47(2) [Supply of goods or services subject to a restriction]
( I've omitted this section for brevity )


47(3) [Supplier's refusal to deal]

A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the
corporation refuses:

(a) to supply goods or services to a person;

(b) to supply goods or services to a person at a particular price; or

(c) to give or allow a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in
relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services to a person;

for the reason that the person or, if the person is a body corporate, a
body corporate related to that body corporate:

(d) has acquired, or has not agreed not to acquire, goods or
services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description,
directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or from a
competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation;

(e) has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to re-supply, goods or
services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description,
acquired directly or indirectly from a competitor of the corporation or
from a competitor of a body corporate related to the corporation; or

(f) has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to re-supply, goods or
services, or goods or services of a particular kind or description,
acquired from the corporation to any person, or has re-supplied, or has
not agreed not to re-supply, goods or services, or goods or services of
a particular kind or description, acquired from the corporation:

(i) to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons
other than particular persons or classes of persons; or

(ii) in particular places or classes of places or in places
other than particular places or classes of places.


Now pray tell me which legislation your opinion is based upon

That is NOT an unreasonable restriction of trade.

It is an utterly reasonable one.






** It does not work for people in the repair businesses - you are
obviously not.

The only thing obvious sy-Phil-is, is that you are no Sherlock Holmes.

** Exclusive repair arrangements ( or closed shops) are widespread and
considered legal.

Prove otherwise in the Federal Courts anytime - arsehole.

Have a look at Section 45 of the Trade Practices Act. If you have above
grade 3 comprehension levels, you will understand that the act
explicitly prohibits such arrangements.

Just a word of advice sy-Phil-is, before making sweeping statements
regarding Law or standards, do a bit of research first, it will save you
from proving to everyone what an ignorant, opinionated irrelevance you are.

Have a nice day
Dennis.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dennis Nolan"

Well actually sy-Phil-is it isn't

** **** you - arsehole.

I don't really need to prove it,

** No chance of that happening anyway.

but just for you sy-Phil-is,

** **** you - arsehole.

here is an extract from section 47 of The Trade Practices Act.


SECTION 47 EXCLUSIVE DEALING

( snipped for brevity)


** Where in that verbal jungle does it say that a corporation must not
refuse to supply competitors ?

It just ain't there.

Have a look at Section 45 of the Trade Practices Act.

** What - all 30 pages of it ????

If you have above grade 3 comprehension levels, you will understand that
the act explicitly prohibits such arrangements.

** Then off to Court you go and prove it.

In 30 years no-one has managed to do it so far.

Just a word of advice sy-Phil-is,

** **** you - asshole.

before making sweeping statements regarding Law or standards,

** The one making wild, unsupported claims is YOU - shithead.

You have far more than just a *few* screws loose and are a dangerous
bloody nut case.

Piss off.



................. Phil

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Phil Allison wrote:

Well actually sy-Phil-is it isn't

I don't really need to prove it, but just for you sy-Phil-is, here is an
extract from section 47 of The Trade Practices Act.


SECTION 47 EXCLUSIVE DEALING

47(1) [Exclusive dealing prohibited]

Subject to this section, a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce,
engage in the practice of exclusive dealing.

47(2) [Supply of goods or services subject to a restriction]
( I've omitted this section for brevity )


47(3) [Supplier's refusal to deal]

After simplifying this particular clause to suit my particular
circumstances, it looks like this:

"A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if
the corporation refuses ... to supply goods ... to a person ... for
the reason that the person ... has acquired ... services of a
particular kind ... directly ... from a competitor of the corporation
...."

The "person" would be the owner or the owner's agent (me), the
"services" would be my labour, and the "competitor" would be myself.

It seems to me that Mac1 is clearly in breach of the legislation.

OK, it's off to the ACCC I go. Thanks very much for the ammunition.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Phil Allison]

"Franc Zabkar"

"A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if
the corporation refuses ... to supply goods ... to a person ... for
the reason that the person ... has acquired ... services of a
particular kind ... directly ... from a competitor of the corporation
..."

The "person" would be the owner or the owner's agent (me), the
"services" would be my labour, and the "competitor" would be myself.

** Mind bendingly absurd interpretation.

The so called "goods" in your example are not on open sale to anyone.

It seems to me that Mac1 is clearly in breach of the legislation.

** Rot - they have two simple excuses.

1. You are a direct competitor for what they do.

2. The "goods" are not ones they trade in - but use as "materials" for
warranty and others repairs as needed.

OK, it's off to the ACCC I go. Thanks very much for the ammunition.

** LOL - there is no-where to go.

You have to write a complaint and then wait for a reply.

Bet anything you get fobbed off with a stock reply from one of the women who
act as ACCC's gate dragons.

Refusing to supply "materials" is legal.

Refusing to supply a competitor is legal.





............. Phil

 

[Dennis Nolan]

"Dennis Nolan"



** **** you - arsehole.





** No chance of that happening anyway.





** **** you - arsehole.






( snipped for brevity)


** Where in that verbal jungle does it say that a corporation must not
refuse to supply competitors ?

It just ain't there.

Well syPhilis, maybe your comprehension level is too low to understand
the language of the legislation. So here it is again
SECTION 47 EXCLUSIVE DEALING

47(1) [Exclusive dealing prohibited]

****** "prohibited" means you are not allowed to do it.

Subject to this section, a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce,
engage in the practice of exclusive dealing.


47(3) [Supplier's refusal to deal]

A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the
corporation refuses:

(a) to supply goods or services to a person;

****** So according to the above a business is not permitted to refuse
to supply goods or services to anyone.

"anyone" includes you, me, compeditors, other service providers, in
fact anyone who wishes to buy. No ifs, no buts, and no exclusions.


Now a quote from the initial post

"Mac1 in turn told me that they would not supply the
spare part on its own, but insisted that their technicians install it
whether I wanted them to or not."

So according to the above, Mac1 will supply the item, but only when it's
sale is tied to another service, namely, installation.
This also contravenes The Trade Practices Act.

The whole point of The Trade Practices Act is to protect the consumer,
it is not to protect the profitability of business.

On the premise, that more competition results in cheaper prices for the
consumer, the TPC and ACCC stamp heavily on those who use methods that
negate the purpose of the act.

This is why you can attach your own phone or other equipment to the
incoming Telstra phone service.
You can have your car serviced at say Autotune without loosing your new
car warranty.
You can use your own finance and insurance company when purchasing a
car, house or anything else.

It is why stores can not legaly refuse to sell plumbing or electrical
supplies to non-tradespeople, even when it requires a licensed tradesman
to install it.

** What - all 30 pages of it ????






** Then off to Court you go and prove it.

If I am refused supplies and my usual response does not result in
getting the
supplies, then I will notify the ACCC and let them deal with it.
I will however now include a copy of the above section of the act whan
responding to their refusal to supply.

In 30 years no-one has managed to do it so far.

1978
Stihl Chainsaws $75.000
Refusing to supply goods as a means of forcing retailer to sell at the
official price.
In the judgment the withholding of goods part of the penalty was $45.000.

1978
Pye Industries $120,000
Pye stopped supplying a retailer in an attempt to force the retailer to
increase the prices that it was selling Pye TV.

Pye also lost it's appeal in 1979

Now syPhilis, read the judgments before trying to claim that the above
are not relevant.

** **** you - asshole.






** The one making wild, unsupported claims is YOU - shithead.

Maybe I missed something, any opinions I have made are usually obviously
my opinion, and where possible I try to indicate the source. For claims
I normally do give the source.
It seems to me that it is you who append "that is the law" to
statements, without indicating which law, or providing the section
paragraph etc. which would enable anyone to check the legislation and
determine if it is in fact the law.

You have far more than just a *few* screws loose and are a dangerous
bloody nut case.

Piss off.



................ Phil

But syPhilis, it seems that the more hopeless your position becomes, the
more you revert to profanity. You seem to have a fascination for swear
words, like a child when learning the naughty words from their school
friends, you use them inapropiatly whenever you are unable to make an
intelligent response. Even your personal insults are childish and
ineffectual. Effective personal insults require imagination,
intelligence and a great understanding of the language.
The above is a personal opinion and is based on the posts in this news
group.

Have a happy new year
Dennis.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dennis Nolan"

Phil Allison wrote:
Well syPhilis, maybe your comprehension level is too low to understand the
language of the legislation.

** What a fucking mental retard is Dennis the Menace.

47(3) [Supplier's refusal to deal]

A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the
corporation refuses:

(a) to supply goods or services to a person;

****** So according to the above a business is not permitted to refuse
to supply goods or services to anyone.

** Selective quoting is quite wrong.

The section is full of *reasons* for non supply that are prohibited.

All other reasons are therefore quite legal.

Now a quote from the initial post

"Mac1 in turn told me that they would not supply the
spare part on its own, but insisted that their technicians install it
whether I wanted them to or not."

So according to the above, Mac1 will supply the item, but only when it's
sale is tied to another service, namely, installation.
This also contravenes The Trade Practices Act.

** Utter drivel.

They offer a repair service using materials that are not on open sale to
anyone.

A common and legal arrangement.

My stock of components is not for sale to anyone either.

The whole point of The Trade Practices Act is to protect the consumer, it
is not to protect the profitability of business.

** It is to protect competition too - which would be harmed if
competitors were compelled to supply eachother.

If I am refused supplies and my usual response does not result in getting
the supplies, then I will notify the ACCC and let them deal with it.

** ROTFLMAO - Dennis the Menace is a real hoot!!!

Now syPhilis, read the judgments before trying to claim that the above are
not relevant.

** Dennis the Menace is plain insane.

Maybe I missed something, any opinions I have made are usually obviously
my opinion, and where possible I try to indicate the source. For claims I
normally do give the source.

** Might as well supply tomato sauce with your fuckwit assertions.


Dennis the Menace has far more than just a *few* screws loose and is a
dangerous
bloody nut case.

Piss off wanker !!!




.............. Phil

 

[Dennis Nolan]

"Dennis Nolan"

Phil Allison wrote:


Well syPhilis, maybe your comprehension level is too low to understand the
language of the legislation.

** What a fucking mental retard is Dennis the Menace.

47(3) [Supplier's refusal to deal]

A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the
corporation refuses:

(a) to supply goods or services to a person;

****** So according to the above a business is not permitted to refuse
to supply goods or services to anyone.

** Selective quoting is quite wrong.

Having clipped some 150 lines from my previous posting you accuse me of
selective quoting, you must have two dicks syPhilis, nobody could be so
stupid with only one to pull.

The section is full of *reasons* for non supply that are prohibited.

All other reasons are therefore quite legal.

Read it and you will find that the act is encompassing, and exclusions
are explicitly named. And refusing to supply because it is to a
competitor is not mentioned as an exclusion.
You might as will say that because the road safety legislation does not
say that doing 150km/h in an E type Jaguar is not mentioned in the act,
then anyone with an E type Jaguar does not have to comply with speed
limits. Get a brain.

** Utter drivel.

They offer a repair service using materials that are not on open sale to
anyone.

If they sell to anyone, then they have to sell to everyone.
They can reserve the right to replace a part under warranty to their own
agents and service centers. but can not refuse to supply a part to a
customer or competitor.

A common and legal arrangement.

Once again, no, any restrictive legal agreement which reduces
competition is illegal.

My stock of components is not for sale to anyone either.

Then either you are not doing any business, or you are giving them away.

** It is to protect competition too - which would be harmed if
competitors were compelled to supply eachother.

You get competition when there are more than one supplier in a market.
The more there are in the market, the more competition there is. And
that is why the government has legislated against practices which
restrict free competition.
Allowing a supplier to refuse to supply goods to a competitor restricts
competition, and that is why the act forbids it.

** ROTFLMAO - Dennis the Menace is a real hoot!!!






** Dennis the Menace is plain insane.






** Might as well supply tomato sauce with your fuckwit assertions.


Dennis the Menace has far more than just a *few* screws loose and is a
dangerous
bloody nut case.

Piss off wanker !!!




............. Phil

Anyway syPhilis have a happy new year
Dennis.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dennis Nolan"

Read it and you will find that the act is encompassing, and exclusions are
explicitly named.

** No they are not.

The prohibitions only are named - fuckhead.

If they sell to anyone, then they have to sell to everyone.

** They sell materials to no-one.

Then either you are not doing any business, or you are giving them away.

** They are not on sale - they are used in the carrying out of my work.

Allowing a supplier to refuse to supply goods to a competitor restricts
competition, and that is why the act forbids it.

** Bullshit on both counts.

No lie is beyond this mental retard.




................ Phil

 

[Dennis Nolan]

"Dennis Nolan"




** No they are not.

The prohibitions only are named - fuckhead.






** They sell materials to no-one.






** They are not on sale - they are used in the carrying out of my work.

So in effect you are selling them, unless you have your customers supply
their own parts.

** Bullshit on both counts.

No lie is beyond this mental retard.




................ Phil

Anyway my self imposed penance is over and I will no longer have to put
up with this crap.
It's a pity that news groups are invaded by small minded idiots who's
only life is to ruin the functionality of something that was meant to
provide assistance and insight to all.
Clinton has much to answer for. Before the privatization of the Internet
idiots like syPhilis were not tolerated and were quickly denied access.

Anyway have a happy new year everyone, and pray that Phil sees the error
of his ways. Maybe I'll look in on this NG in six months or so and see
if it's worth while subscribing to.

Have a nice day
Dennis

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dennis Nolan"

So in effect you are selling them, unless you have your customers supply
their own parts.

** They are not on offer for sale, they are never sold as "goods".

They are *materials" consumed during repair work.

Legally, the situations are quite separate.

Anyway my self imposed penance is over and I will no longer have to put up
with this crap.

** How do you stand the stench of all the putrid crap that you are so full
of ???

It's a pity that news groups are invaded by small minded idiots who's only
life is to ruin the functionality of something that was meant to provide
assistance and insight to all.

** I could not have said it any better - ABOUT fuckheads like you -
Dennis Nolan

Anyway have a happy new year everyone, and pray that Phil sees the error
of his ways. Maybe I'll look in on this NG in six months or so and see if
it's worth while subscribing to.

** Piss off Dennis, do not ever come back.

That would make one less public Menace on the NG.




................. Phil