I have had this Mura effect on my Transformer Prime for a number of months. It is centre of screen about 1cm up from the bottom. Having read many of the forums regarding ASUS RMA I decided not to send it back. That was until the rear camera went green-screen and the audio-out socket became intermittent. I RMA to their repair centre in Czech Republic, just got a bill from ASUS for 276 Euro for customer induced damage CID. I am questioning the bill with them at the moment as, like yourselves, believe it is a faulty panel not CID. I have used the contributions to the various forums to back up my case and I will keep you posted.
22/01/13 I was informed by email that because I queried the CID charge my repair has been passed back to servicing for further investigation.
24/01/13 Emailed ASUS as to delay in getting back to me .
25/01/13 Received the following response, "We apologise for any delay caused. Our service team need to contact our repair centre first and wait for their response.
Once they have received the information you will be contacted as soon as possible."
28/01/13 20:30 No contact from ASUS,about to email again
29/01/13 Received email from email@example.com
including a reduced invoice dated 18th January 2013 for CID of 192.26 Euro stating that the camera and audio out issues would be fixed under warranty and therefore shipping will be paid for by Asus. I have forwarded this email to my earlier contact at Asus again stating that I do not accept that the mura effect is cid. I also asked why it had taken 10 days for the new invoice to filter down to me.
01/02/13 Since I did not get a reply I phoned customer services and was told to go on-line and fill out the form at a given web address (not able to post link) and to expect reply within 48 hours.
04/02/13 No reply by 1400 so rang customer service. Had an enlightened chat with anon to the effect that Asus decide what is CID Mura by comparing the damage on the screen to a database of photographs of Mura effects which their engineers have access to, very scientific
. I also learned that LCD screens can be easily damaged by simply handling them???? Odd sort of a statement when the item in question requires the user to handle it in order to communicate with it.
As I was talking to customer services I received a reply from customer complaints again informing me that the charge for the screen replacement still stands. They also gave me the contact details for Citizens Advice Consumer Service if I wished to contact them. I do not live in the UK so instead I contacted the my local European Consumer Centre to see it they can help. I have also written to: Customer Service Manager,Asus UK LTD,Focus 31,West wing first floor
Cleveland road,Hemel Hempstead,HP2 7BW,United Kingdom.. I await a response from both of the above.
25/02/13 Had a couple of email exchanges with asus support in the mean time and received a written unsigned reply from Customer Service Manager. No change to status, camera and audio a warranty fix but screen replacement chargeable. I have instructed them to do in-warranty repairs and return the unit.
The letter does contain one interesting sentence "If you believe that your product is not fit for purpose I can only suggest taking this up with your place of purchase."
I believe that UK consumer law states that electronic goods have a minimum 2 year warranty irrespective of the manufacturer warranty.
I await the return of the unit to see if their repair have worsened the mura effect, if it has I will be going down the consumer law route.