Apple has announced a repair extension program for 13in MacBooks sold in 2006 and 2007.

It seems that "a very small percentage" of MacBooks sold between May 2006 and December 2007 (or thereabouts) are suffering from premature drive failure.

Affected models were fitted with 1.83, 2.0 or 2.16GHz processors, and 60, 80, 100, 120 or 160GB hard drives.

The symptom of a failed drive is a flashing question mark at startup.

Failed MacBooks should be taken to an Apple Store (appointment required) or to an authorised service provider. Drives covered by the program will be replaced free of charge.

Apple says it will contact owners that have paid for out of warranty repairs that would qualify under the program, and arrange reimbursement. Affected owners that don't hear from the company should contact Apple technical support.

The program covers affected MacBooks for the longer of three years from the date of purchase or until August 15, 2010 (six months after the announcement of the program). Further extensions will be provided "if needed."

Good on Apple for making it relatively easy for customers to get a replacement for failed drives, but I can't help feeling that this sort of thing should be addressed by a recall, or at least a clear entitlement to the free replacement of parts from 'known faulty' batches.

After all, disk manufacturers are fond of quoting mean time between failure rates that could be measured in decades, and annual failure rates of less than one in 200.

So when problems do occur - as they will from time to time - owners shouldn't be forced to wait for a failure and all the inconvenience that causes.

Even with relatively rigorous backups (and anyone using Time Machine is probably doing better than the majority of people that don't), there's still the possibility of lost data. And an unscheduled repair can cause a serious loss of productivity.

Clarification of the statutory warranty would also be a benefit to owners. Consumer affairs officials - and consumer advocates - seem reasonably happy with the idea that premium products attract a longer statutory warranty, but guidelines about what owners can reasonably demand seem sketchy.

And given the uncertainty, trying to enforce a statutory warranty against a reluctant supplier (the retailer, not the manufacturer or importer) can be a tough job.