With most network providers now only offering an 18 month minimum contract for smartphones which can cost as much as £600 per handset, it seems unreasonable that they will only guarantee the phone for only 12 months.

So if the phone develops a fault or dies (through no fault of the owner) after 12 months and they are still within their 18 or 24 month contract, is it unreasonable to expect they guarantee the handset for the full term of their contract?

Depends on how you look at it. To some, the phone is just the gimmick to get you signed up to the service, whether it lasts or not is not the service provider's problem.

They should offer some sort of guarantee or make contracts shorter in length with the phone guaranteed for the duration of the contract.

With the current phone turnaround I honestly think mobile providers should offer contracts no longer than 12 months and that's it. I mean who wants a phone for two years let alone look after it so it doesn't get broken.

You point would have merit were it not for the fact every manufacturer bar Apple and Motorola, offer a 24mth warranty on all their handset sales in the EU. Now that being said from my own personal experience Vodafone will look after any warranty claims during the length of your contract. I believe EE and O2 are similar, Three I am not so sure on.

I should also add its 24mths from the day of purchase, even if you bought it from Carphone Warehouse, I think in some instances they repair the handsets themselves.

Apple and Motorola are typical American companies trying to shaft people with a single year warranty when most folk on contract is for a minimum of 2yrs. Though to be fair to Apple they have been known to repair or replace faulty handsets outside of this time frame "good will".

They are covered under the Sale of Goods Act. Has to be fit for purpose - so reasonable time frame is the key word and if you challenged them on a fault and took it to court, you would win I suspect.

Apple have their own 1 year warranty, but if you purchase from Apple directly then they also cover your statutory rights too (up to 6 years in England&Wales and 5 years in Scotland). Whoever you buy your handset from should cover you in the same way.

That's a really misleading statement.

Apple don't "cover" anything, although they will might well replace at no cost, there is no iron clad guarantee once the warranty has expired.

As a consumer, if you have a device (let's say an iPhone) fail after 13 months, you have every right to feel that it hasn't lasted a reasonable amount of time.

Apple, by the same token have every right to legally refuse a free repair/replacement.

What you can do at that point, is simply take them to court and point out the failure of a premium £700 device (in mint condition, so not abused/dropped etc).

The judge would of course agree with you and Apple would have to stump up (inc court costs).

They would also probably settle before going to court as they know they'd lose, but that's their choice.

The other thing you might have to do is pay for an independent report on your iPhone to present to the judge, that supports your unnatural and premature death claim (costs of which would again fall to Apple when they lose).

It's really important to understand the differences in law instead of issuing false info.

We in the UK have 6 years to lodge a claim under the Sale of Goods Act (we gave up the enforced 2 year warranty as standard that the EU has in favour of that), but goods only carry a 12 month guarantee by law.

At the end of the day the OP is a bit of a moot point. If they do that the price will rise, it's a balancing equation. Personally, I'd rather have the choice, so my answer is "no they shouldn't".

I think the price is high enough considering no phone on the planet costs even half of £700 to put together even including R+D.

Even retailers make a pretty penny on sales, so indeed they should.

Simple buy a samsung 2 year warranty

At least we get a year in UK. I think US only get 90 days.

Red herring. MS charge 100's of £s for something that costs 1p to manufacture and distribute.
Fact of life is if the providers were forced to add insurance, prices would rise. I prefer to make my own decision whether to underwrite an insurance risk.

So how much should a phone be?

IMHO absolutely, yes.

But if they did, you can guarantee that some people would abuse it.

Agreed, and that is one of the 3 reasons why it is always better economically to underwrite your own insurance if you can afford the loss -

1. Insurance systems are abused
2. The replacement item is always top dollar - if one were replacing it oneself you would always find a cheaper way of doing it
3. Insurance companies exist to make a profit

I'm not sure I gave any indication in my post the price should change..

You didn't but inferred heavily that they were more than they should be and so having an extra warranty shouldn't incur a price increase in the handset.

This.

I have a 2 year contract with Three. My handset has a 2 year warranty. I also have insurance on the phone too.

Not all of us are obsessed with having the latest phone or have some deluded thought that people judge us by our phone.

I doubt that very very much.

Slightest hint of impact or water ingress and you would be out of pocket for a damn sight more than the worth of a used phone.

And if rooted, that would probably lapse the guarantee regardless.



Folk sign up knowing what they are getting into, if not, frankly they deserve zero sympathy.

Indeed I am one of those who if they have a phone and it does everything I want it to do I will stick with it until I'm forced to upgrade.

I am of the understanding that until the contract expires the phone is still property of the company you're leasing it from. Until it's paid for in full isn't it still theirs and they can demand it back or the remaining cost of it therefore they should guarantee it until such time it becomes your property.

Then your understanding is wrong.
I believe EE have a clause which says the phone is their property for the first few months, but in general once you have the phone it is yours, no question.

If you're over 30 maybe you're not bothered but people around my age (25) do actually care about these things you know. Take a look on Twitter, Instagram, Grindr (if you're gay) etc and you will see that 95% of people in their 20's have the latest device (mostly iPhone 6/6+).

If I found or seen anyone between 25-29 that has the iPhone 5s or earlier then I would NEVER post again on the issue.

Two of my 23 year old colleagues have HTC One M7 which is now just over 2 years old; and another 22 year old has an iPhone 5. They're not bothered, can't see a reason to upgrade, all with the Three network.

Read up on the Sales of Goods act, and your doubt will be removed.

Things have to be fit for purpose. If you bought a phone for £30 expecting it to last more than a year is unreasonable. Pay £500+ for a handset and it fails within 2 years, and you are covered (as long as damage isnt caused by the user). You would expect an electronic device costing £500+ to last more than two years.