Chinese state-run media criticizing Surface Pro warranty


The state-run Chinese media is criticizing Microsoft for its Surface Pro warranty.

Following harsh criticisms of Apple's warranties, China's state-run media outlets are now turning their attention to Microsoft's Surface Pro tablet, complaining about its warranty in the country.

According to a report by Bloomberg, China National Radio is criticizing Microsoft for not following the country's law requiring notebooks to have a two-year warranty for main parts and a one-year full repair warranty. The Surface Pro, the outlet said, should fall under the guidelines of that law. Instead, Microsoft is offering a one-year warranty for both main parts and a full device repair.

Apple came under China's furor when the state-run media claimed the company's Chinese product warranties weren't comparable to its warranties in other countries. A defective iPhone received from a Chinese customer, for instance, would be repaired with new electronics, though the back cover remained the same. In other countries, however, the entire device would be replaced. The news eventually led to Apple CEO Tim Cook releasing a statement saying the company offered its "sincere apologies" and would change its repair policies.

Since Cook's apology, the state-run media has painted Apple in a positive light, with a state-run newspaper saying Apple's apology was "worth respect compared with other American companies."

Source: Bloomberg | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Leak shows two-factor authentication is coming to Microsoft Accounts

Next Story

Windows Phone 8 will reportedly support 1080p, quad-core processors by year's end

25 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Polluting the Air to 3 levels above poisonous, having thousands of children and old people in hospitals, it is maybe, just maybe a bit more important than 1 years or 2 years warranty

Again, I think Microsoft should have 5 years warranty on the Surface in Beijing, the user will not live that long to use it anyway.

john.smith_2084 said,
Polluting the Air to 3 levels above poisonous, having thousands of children and old people in hospitals, it is maybe, just maybe a bit more important than 1 years or 2 years warranty

Again, I think Microsoft should have 5 years warranty on the Surface in Beijing, the user will not live that long to use it anyway.

It's just Chinese people getting harmed, why do you care? But sure, lets talk about China's crappy policies in a product warranty article.

Not nutty at all....

linsook said,

It's just Chinese people getting harmed, why do you care? But sure, lets talk about China's crappy policies in a product warranty article.

Not nutty at all....

Exactly, because as we all know air pollution stays within a countries borders, it doesn't have an effect on anyone else.

boo_star said,

Exactly, because as we all know air pollution stays within a countries borders, it doesn't have an effect on anyone else.

Right, and its nice of you to point that out because the Surface Pro warranty will have a positive affect on pollution.

when will they criticize the clean coal power plants and factories around beijing (there are 30 of them), who knows, maybe their CEO's will say sorry and the pollution will go away

That is the countries consumer laws. Nothing special, just the law as it should be.
Many countries require products like the Surface to have much longer warranties than 12 months.
UK and Australia come to mind for countries where 12 months would be breaking that countries consumer laws.
A Surface should reasonably last longer than 12 months so consumer right laws dictate that the warranty is much longer than 12 months.

USA has long traded under a "buyer beware" type system that entirely favours the merchant, where the consumer can be burnt by dodgy sales techniques and inferior products.
Where as most advanced economies trade under a "fit for purpose" type system that requires the merchant to sell products that do what the seller has claimed.

TechieXP said,
The Surface isn't a laptop. Sorry China!
We only get 1 year warranty here in the USA, what makes them so special that they need a longer one?

If our representatives are in the pockets of big companies it is our fault.
in Europe any electronic device is covered by two years warranty as well.

TechieXP said,
The Surface isn't a laptop. Sorry China!
We only get 1 year warranty here in the USA, what makes them so special that they need a longer one?

Its not *them* who are special. Its *you* who are missing out.

theyarecomingforyou said,
That's not a secret. I thought that was common knowledge.

I assumed it was not well done because I've never met anyone else who's heard of it.

thealexweb said,

I assumed it was not well done because I've never met anyone else who's heard of it.

Many people probably are unaware of the SoGA legislation, many those that are aware don't quite understand it though.

You need to be able to prove the product had an inherent fault at the time of purchase, usually via an independent engineer report which could be costly (you would be able to reclaim the fee if it was proven to be faulty but it's still potentially throwing good money after bad if it isn't) AND the product only has to last a "reasonable" amount of time which is subjective (a cheap TV may only be expected to last 3 years for example.)

So while yes, you can potentially claim up to 6 years, it isn't as black and white as a general 1/2 year warranty.

Yet another sensationally framed headline that misrepresents the original article. The fact that the Chinese media is "state-run" is irrelevant, as it is reporting on Microsoft violating Chinese law - some the media in any country would do. The real focus should be on the law breaking, not the media reporting of the law breaking.

Whether it breaks the law is up for debate, hence why I wrote it as such (it could be argued both ways -- that the Surface Pro is or isn't a notebook). Additionally, the fact that it's the state-run media criticizing Microsoft after a separate state-run media criticism of Apple is noteworthy given how that situation unfolded.

It's believe China either made or paid celebrities to criticize Apple. The government, it appeared, also orchestrated a cohesive effort criticizing Apple for its repair policies. So, yes, it is noteworthy that it's state-run media, as it could have implications for Microsoft's relations with the country as a whole.

I disagree, if a company isn't fulfilling the law of that country, it doesn't matter if they're bashed by private companies or state-owned media, until they comply with the law it's free game.

Anthony Tosie said,
It's believe China either made or paid celebrities to criticize Apple. The government, it appeared, also orchestrated a cohesive effort criticizing Apple for its repair policies. So, yes, it is noteworthy that it's state-run media, as it could have implications for Microsoft's relations with the country as a whole.

And the exact same thing happens with privately run media, except it's even more overt. Do you think Murdoch doesn't have any agenda? Do you think major companies don't pay for favourable press? It seems to me the only reason to mention that the media is state-run in the headline is to make for sensationalistic news.

The translation from Chinese law, is not "laptop" but "portable computing device". So, anything more than a calculator, falls in this as soon as it's portable. including cellphones, tablets, laptops, netbooks, and anything else you want to call them.

Said this, i think your article is actually good one, i don't see anything wrong with it

n_K said,
I disagree, if a company isn't fulfilling the law of that country, it doesn't matter if they're bashed by private companies or state-owned media, until they comply with the law it's free game.

*IF* they are indeed breaking the law... And as governments continue to try to extort money from out of country companies to close shortfalls and economic problems, it is certainly pertinent to the story. I agree that it should have been included.

theyarecomingforyou said,

And the exact same thing happens with privately run media, except it's even more overt. Do you think Murdoch doesn't have any agenda? Do you think major companies don't pay for favourable press? It seems to me the only reason to mention that the media is state-run in the headline is to make for sensationalistic news.


I never said private media outlets can't do the same. But there are drastically different implications when an entire line of state-run media starts criticizing a company's products and services versus when an entire line of privately run media does the same.

I think you're reading way more into the headline than you should be.

Anthony Tosie said,
I never said private media outlets can't do the same. But there are drastically different implications when an entire line of state-run media starts criticizing a company's products and services versus when an entire line of privately run media does the same.

There's a difference between criticising a company and reporting that it is breaking the law. The use of "state-run media" in the headline seeks to downplay the legitimacy of the claim. Microsoft is either breaking the law or it isn't - that it's being reported by "state-run media" is irrelevant.

M_Lyons10 said,

*IF* they are indeed breaking the law... And as governments continue to try to extort money from out of country companies to close shortfalls and economic problems.

A law protecting buyer investment in a product is now " an attempt to extort money..."?

theyarecomingforyou said,

There's a difference between criticising a company and reporting that it is breaking the law. The use of "state-run media" in the headline seeks to downplay the legitimacy of the claim. Microsoft is either breaking the law or it isn't - that it's being reported by "state-run media" is irrelevant.


Neither the headline nor the article itself makes a judgment on the validity of the claim being made.

The use of "state-run media" is not used to downplay the legitimacy of the claim; I've already explained to you that it's being used as a descriptor because of the recent news from state-run Chinese media outlets and Apple, something you completely ignored when I responded to you. If a News Corporation company did the same thing, I would report it the same way -- that a News Corporation company is making the claim after previously criticizing Apple.

There is nothing jingoistic about either the headline or the article itself, as you're implying.