Right, now I'm fuming.
Got a call from Apple, and they said they won't do a replacement as the machine is three years old. They only do replacements after "a reasonable number of repairs" and then only if the machine is less than a year old. So what are the options for me? "A repair". Argh!
I ask about Trading Standards and their assurance that, if repairs are made and are ineffectual, that there is an entitlement to replacement. "You'll have to take that up with them, then, it's not in our policy to replace machines", I'm told.
So I decide to offer a compromise. If you won't replace the machine, will you (as per Trading Standards advice) offer a compensatory discount against me purchasing a brand-new machine? "No, sorry, it's against policy to do that, as well".
Fuck.
My choices now appear to be
1. Cave in, get machine repaired (and if it breaks again, the scheme has finished, so I'll be screwed).
2. Go to court.
I'll call Trading Standards again and find out what to do. Since I do kind of need my machine right now, I'm tempted to roll over and let them repair it. But then, why should I be bullied just because they're big and feel that they can flout the consumer laws?
Ironically, I was looking to get a Powerbook (when I'd saved up) and let Girlfriend have the iBook as a hand-me-down , but now I'm considering buying a replacement iBook then chasing compensation from Apple to cover that cost (or the resale price of the dead one). But I somehow feel that will leave the ball in their court, despite them losing out on a Powerbook sale (because one sale is insignificant, and they get an iBook sale anyway - why bother with my cae after that?).
Buggerbuggerbugger.