Silly people that make these decisions. Unless the refurbs have visible blemishes, it's well known that they are quite often more stable and better tested than brand new units. Maybe the blemishes are the concern? Do people feel "dirty" using a pre-owned device? Personally, I find some of my favourite items at thrift stores.
When Apple refurbished a device they replace the outer casing with a new one, so I don't think the problem is blemishes.
Silly people that make these decisions. Unless the refurbs have visible blemishes, it's well known that they are quite often more stable and better tested than brand new units. Maybe the blemishes are the concern? Do people feel "dirty" using a pre-owned device? Personally, I find some of my favourite items at thrift stores.
Silly people make silly quotes. The fact that you mentioned "quite often" is translated in legal terms as "not guaranteed". The judge is 100% right. There is absolutely no guarantee that a refurbished item has always the same quality as a newly produced item. The MBTF of a non replaced component in a refurbished device is always less than the MTBF of the same component in a new device, so statistically a refurbished device will fail earlier. If this failure just happens after the warranty of the refurbished, then you as a customer are screwed. By the way I did not mention Apple in my reply, because it is applicable for ever manufacturer
There is in fact a specific case for refurbished units being less likely to fail than new units. The failure rates for most electronic devices follows a characteristic that's known as a "bathtub curve," whereby electronic components are statistically much more likely to fail very early on, i.e., "infant mortality," and very late, i.e., "end of life," in their expected service life. In between these extremes the failure rate is fairly constant. Statistically speaking, a refurbished unit that has lived beyond its infant mortality period and not subjected to conditions that impact its reliability is in fact statistically less likely to fail than a unit that is brand new.
Since we are talking about failed units (iPads) being replaced upon failure the statistic of concern here is mean time to fail (MTTF) and not mean time between failures (MTBF).
I have no idea what the specific period of time of time is for iPads to be susceptible to infant mortality or whether the factory testing includes a sufficient "burn-in" period to reduce the population of shipped units more likely to suffer from infant mortality. Without knowing the failure rate curves of the iPad as a whole system of components it's hard to make a general statement about whether a refurb or new unit is objectively more reliable. My guess would be that within the time span of the iPad product warranty the failure likelihood between refurb and new units would be about the same and statistically indiscernible.
I think it really comes down to an emotional bias that "new" implies better and more reliable regardless of any evidence or statistics to the contrary. When it comes to consumer products and maintaining happy customers, companies need to cater to the emotional needs of their customers. If supplying equally reliable refurbished units creates any sort of emotional anguish in a customers mind then the company should give them a shiny new in-the-box replacement. If the companies are benefiting from using refurbished units as replacements then perhaps passing along a portion of their savings in the form of a gift card as incentives to customers who are knowledgeable about the failure statistics and are willing to take a refurb unit along with the same exact warranty as a new unit would work. For example, give customers a choice between a shiny new unit or a refurb unit plus a $50 gift card, both with the same exact downstream warranty. This is essentially what all vendors are doing when selling refurbished units at discount prices with the same warranty. Apply the same model with in-warranty replacements and it's a win-win for everyone.
The law states that the consumer has the choice of repair or replacement. Repair was not possible, so a replacement was given which was not new. Dutch law does not state that it should be new. The jurisprudence in this case comes from the European Court, which in a similar case has ruled that the item should be new. A previous iPhone case was also based on this particular ruling. The judge simply followed rulings that are already in place.
Doesn't her iPad then become a refurbished unit for someone else? So how's a repair not possible?
Huh? You bring in a unit having used it say 23 months and you want a brand new one in return? If the principle is "like for like" then yes, a refurbished unit IS "like for like"...
It sounds to me like this decision is more to punish Apple because one of its products failed before its time rather than fairness to both parties... Sort of justifying killing a person because they killed a person: it's not to make the person or the world a better place -- its just pure revenge.
You know when you drive a new car off the lot, the value just drops. It's no longer NEW. Anything you buy, once you walk out the store, open it up and start using, it's no longer NEW. It's now a used product. You used that new iPad for 4 months, it turned into a used iPad 4 months ago.
Getting a used Replacement that looks new and was tested to work perfectly is a good device. Maybe even better tested then the ones coming off the factory assembly line. I really don't see what the issue here is. Replacing your broken for whatever reason iOS device for NEW seems crazy, especially if it's spelled out in the warranty. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it and then bitch later.
If you buy a device on launch day and it doesn't work properly doesn't Apple replace it with a brand new device? There are instances in which Apple replaces a used device with a brand new one.
1. If the unit fails before the end of the seller's return period, I'd expect to receive a new unit. Of course, in this scenario I would simply return the defective unit then repurchase a new one.
2. If the unit fails after the seller's return period, but during the manufacturer's warranty period, I'd be okay with a refurbished unit provided it was in at least as good of a condition as the failed unit. Based on my experience with Apple refurbished products, this shouldn't be a problem.
3. However, I suspect the value of a refurbished product may be lower than that of a product that has never been refurbished. I, for one, wouldn't be inclined to pay as much for a refurbished-used product as I would for a new-used product - however psychological and unfounded this may be. One thing that could hurt value is that eBay listings are often searched by a product's specific model number. Since model numbers are different for refurbished products (and less publicized), your auction may not receive the same exposure and thus as high of a bid. It wouldn't be honest to list a refurbished product using its non-refurbished model number.
1. If the unit fails before the end of the seller's return period, I'd expect to receive a new unit. Of course, in this scenario I would simply return the defective unit then repurchase a new one.
2. If the unit fails after the seller's return period, but during the manufacturer's warranty period, I'd be okay with a refurbished unit provided it was in at least as good of a condition as the failed unit. Based on my experience with Apple refurbished products, this shouldn't be a problem.
3. However, I suspect the value of a refurbished product may be lower than that of a product that has never been refurbished. I, for one, wouldn't be inclined to pay as much for a refurbished-used product as I would for a new-used product - however psychological and unfounded this may be. One thing that could hurt value is that eBay listings are often searched by a product's specific model number. Since model numbers are different for refurbished products (and less publicized), your auction may not receive the same exposure and thus as high of a bid. It wouldn't be honest to list a refurbished product using its non-refurbished model number.
1. This I would be okay with and it makes sense to me. Otherwise, you could just return it and buy it again. This is not a road Apple wants to go down so they'd just be better off doing what you said.
2. Again, makes sense to me. Unless you're an entitled fool, you shouldn't expect a new product in place in a defective one after the return period is over. However, in this day and age there are too many entitled people around the world.
3. I wouldn't expect a refurbished product would be worth any less to someone. First of all, they wouldn't know it was refurbished in the first place and it works just as good as new. I've sold my old (now used) iPhones that were replace by Apple with a refurbished unit and got the same amount as others. Used is used...it doesn't matter whether its a refurbished or was new and is now considered used.
1. If the unit fails before the end of the seller's return period, I'd expect to receive a new unit. Of course, in this scenario I would simply return the defective unit then repurchase a new one.
2. If the unit fails after the seller's return period, but during the manufacturer's warranty period, I'd be okay with a refurbished unit provided it was in at least as good of a condition as the failed unit. Based on my experience with Apple refurbished products, this shouldn't be a problem.
3. However, I suspect the value of a refurbished product may be lower than that of a product that has never been refurbished. I, for one, wouldn't be inclined to pay as much for a refurbished-used product as I would for a new-used product - however psychological and unfounded this may be. One thing that could hurt value is that eBay listings are often searched by a product's specific model number. Since model numbers are different for refurbished products (and less publicized), your auction may not receive the same exposure and thus as high of a bid. It wouldn't be honest to list a refurbished product using its non-refurbished model number.
1. This I would be okay with and it makes sense to me. Otherwise, you could just return it and buy it again. This is not a road Apple wants to go down so they'd just be better off doing what you said.
2. Again, makes sense to me. Unless you're an entitled fool, you shouldn't expect a new product in place in a defective one after the return period is over. However, in this day and age there are too many entitled people around the world.
3. I wouldn't expect a refurbished product would be worth any less to someone. First of all, they wouldn't know it was refurbished in the first place and it works just as good as new. I've sold my old (now used) iPhones that were replace by Apple with a refurbished unit and got the same amount as others. Used is used...it doesn't matter whether its a refurbished or was new and is now considered used.
I think its worth remembering that Apple does not sell used equipment. It's either new or refurbished -- meaning that its been brought back up to new or like new condition.
A 32 GB Wifi-only iPad at apple.nl is €409. The same at apple.com is $329. €409 = $448 USD. Both prices are before taxes. In part, this shows the higher cost to consumers for doing business with policies like these in place.
Huh? You bring in a unit having used it say 23 months and you want a brand new one in return? If the principle is "like for like" then yes, a refurbished unit IS "like for like"...
It sounds to me like this decision is more to punish Apple because one of its products failed before its time rather than fairness to both parties... Sort of justifying killing a person because they killed a person: it's not to make the person or the world a better place -- its just pure revenge.
Things are NOT as black and white like what many people in this forum would like to call it out. There are Grey areas which need to be thought through. Say you bought a brand new iphone 6 plus in Jan-01-2017 along with apple care. Now after 4 months, the iphone 6 plus has a problem with one of the components and you go to Apple store and get an update that it cannot be repaired and it needs to be replaced. Now apple replaces it with a refurbished one which was in use for 2.5 years (from Sep-2014 till date). Apple says it is a like for like replacement because it is in working condition and looking good. As a customer, would you be happy? I am not saying all the cases belong to this category. The point is - there are grey areas which we are dealing with here. Just making a blanket statement - "Apple is right and customer is wrong" is not a fair statement IF you are ready to wear the hat of a customer (instead of a shareholder).
I have purchased MANY refurb Apple products during the year, and every single one of them has been in MINT condition without a single visible blemish. I'm pretty sure that Apple replaces both the exteriors and the batteries of all their "refurbs". It's essentially a new unit. Bunch of fucking whiners.
Refurbished always means "used" to me so if you're having device problems within the minimum warranty period and you have to bring it back to the Apple store, you should always get a new one as a replacement.
The thing that has puzzled me over the years is why Apple geniuses go out of their way to convince you the swapped device is not a "refurbished" one...
I have also always taken issue with Apple reserving the right to use used components in repairs.
Why? The "broken" boards go back to Apple, where they're examined for what the problem is. The problem components are then replaced, the part is tested, and sent out for service repairs.
Who else can say "yeah, this part is new and ready to go" besides Apple? Nobody. Demanding new parts is utter folly, and forcing Apple to do so is wasteful and will drive consumer costs way up.
As far as service replacements coming from new stock, yeah, that's dumb. Maybe if you have something with an infant failure in a month, but anything longer than that, and the mileage a customer puts on a product should render that null and void.
A new part is a new part. A reconditioned part is a reconditioned part. Warranty repairs should use new parts to substitute factory defective parts with new ones. Reconditioned parts should be sold as such or put into reconditioned units. That is my opinion, anyway
Whenever I've bought parts for appliances I've had the option of official new parts, reconditioned parts, second hand parts or compatible parts.
All reconditioned parts have suffered stress. It is impossible to evaluate that stress. It might pass a test today and fail tomorrow.
While any part can fail, and any time, I believe consumers should have a clear guarantee that their repairs are carried out with parts that are in the same state as when They were purchased.
Apple has an enormous amount of brand new parts available but reserves the right to use reconditioned parts as that's what works out better for the company. Until someone specifically challenges this practice we will never know just how acceptable it is.
The law states that the consumer has the choice of repair or replacement. Repair was not possible, so a replacement was given which was not new. Dutch law does not state that it should be new. The jurisprudence in this case comes from the European Court, which in a similar case has ruled that the item should be new. A previous iPhone case was also based on this particular ruling. The judge simply followed rulings that are already in place.
Logic and law are frequently strangers, but the law was apparently pretty clear from the EU Court. Legislation would be required to turn this over, sadly this means higher prices for Europeans with no real benefit.
You know when you drive a new car off the lot, the value just drops. It's no longer NEW. Anything you buy, once you walk out the store, open it up and start using, it's no longer NEW. It's now a used product. You used that new iPad for 4 months, it turned into a used iPad 4 months ago.
Getting a used Replacement that looks new and was tested to work perfectly is a good device. Maybe even better tested then the ones coming off the factory assembly line. I really don't see what the issue here is. Replacing your broken for whatever reason iOS device for NEW seems crazy, especially if it's spelled out in the warranty. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it and then bitch later.
You seem to be unaware of how basic, modern consumer laws work. In the EU, any failure within six months of use is automatically attributed to a factory defective part.
It is not a question of whether something is new or not, or any devaluation in the product's monetary value.
That is, the product shipped with the defect but it only manifested itself at a later date. It is also a reason why I consider reconditioned parts that pass a test to be inadequate.
There is more to it than that of course. You cannot take a hammer to a device and then claim a warranty repair. But the general idea is that any new device that fails before six months is because of a factory defect.
I fully support this verdict. New is new. Refurbished is 'used' fobbed off as 'new' in the case in hand.
Apple can put what it wants in its terms but that doesn't make them necessarily legal.
I have also always taken issue with Apple reserving the right to use used components in repairs.
So you would rather just throw things out because they're supposedly bad? This is an area where Apple makes good use of "used" products. There's nothing wrong with getting a refurbished product for a defective. You would never know. Its not like the refurb device works half-ass or has scratches/dents in the case or something. Putting these back into use is far better than recycling them. What else are they going to do with it?
Well I beg to differ. There is absolutely everything wrong with getting a refurbished product to replace a defective new unit. I have explained why elsewhere in this thread.
The law states that the consumer has the choice of repair or replacement. Repair was not possible, so a replacement was given which was not new. Dutch law does not state that it should be new. The jurisprudence in this case comes from the European Court, which in a similar case has ruled that the item should be new. A previous iPhone case was also based on this particular ruling. The judge simply followed rulings that are already in place.
Doesn't her iPad then become a refurbished unit for someone else? So how's a repair not possible?
If Apple deemed it unrepairable, then perhaps it never got refurbished at all.
I fully support this verdict. New is new. Refurbished is 'used' fobbed off as 'new' in the case in hand.
Apple can put what it wants in its terms but that doesn't make them necessarily legal.
I have also always taken issue with Apple reserving the right to use used components in repairs.
So you would rather just throw things out because they're supposedly bad? This is an area where Apple makes good use of "used" products. There's nothing wrong with getting a refurbished product for a defective. You would never know. Its not like the refurb device works half-ass or has scratches/dents in the case or something. Putting these back into use is far better than recycling them. What else are they going to do with it?
Well I beg to differ. There is absolutely everything wrong with getting a refurbished product to replace a defective new unit. I have explained why elsewhere in this thread.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, no where did it say Apple was putting refurbished parts in to a new iPad. It said its was replacing a defective iPad with a refurbished one which is standard practice pretty much everywhere. These are two totally different things. Maybe we both need to go back and re-read the article.
Comments
Since we are talking about failed units (iPads) being replaced upon failure the statistic of concern here is mean time to fail (MTTF) and not mean time between failures (MTBF).
I have no idea what the specific period of time of time is for iPads to be susceptible to infant mortality or whether the factory testing includes a sufficient "burn-in" period to reduce the population of shipped units more likely to suffer from infant mortality. Without knowing the failure rate curves of the iPad as a whole system of components it's hard to make a general statement about whether a refurb or new unit is objectively more reliable. My guess would be that within the time span of the iPad product warranty the failure likelihood between refurb and new units would be about the same and statistically indiscernible.
I think it really comes down to an emotional bias that "new" implies better and more reliable regardless of any evidence or statistics to the contrary. When it comes to consumer products and maintaining happy customers, companies need to cater to the emotional needs of their customers. If supplying equally reliable refurbished units creates any sort of emotional anguish in a customers mind then the company should give them a shiny new in-the-box replacement. If the companies are benefiting from using refurbished units as replacements then perhaps passing along a portion of their savings in the form of a gift card as incentives to customers who are knowledgeable about the failure statistics and are willing to take a refurb unit along with the same exact warranty as a new unit would work. For example, give customers a choice between a shiny new unit or a refurb unit plus a $50 gift card, both with the same exact downstream warranty. This is essentially what all vendors are doing when selling refurbished units at discount prices with the same warranty. Apply the same model with in-warranty replacements and it's a win-win for everyone.
You bring in a unit having used it say 23 months and you want a brand new one in return? If the principle is "like for like" then yes, a refurbished unit IS "like for like"...
It sounds to me like this decision is more to punish Apple because one of its products failed before its time rather than fairness to both parties... Sort of justifying killing a person because they killed a person: it's not to make the person or the world a better place -- its just pure revenge.
1. If the unit fails before the end of the seller's return period, I'd expect to receive a new unit. Of course, in this scenario I would simply return the defective unit then repurchase a new one.
2. If the unit fails after the seller's return period, but during the manufacturer's warranty period, I'd be okay with a refurbished unit provided it was in at least as good of a condition as the failed unit. Based on my experience with Apple refurbished products, this shouldn't be a problem.
3. However, I suspect the value of a refurbished product may be lower than that of a product that has never been refurbished. I, for one, wouldn't be inclined to pay as much for a refurbished-used product as I would for a new-used product - however psychological and unfounded this may be. One thing that could hurt value is that eBay listings are often searched by a product's specific model number. Since model numbers are different for refurbished products (and less publicized), your auction may not receive the same exposure and thus as high of a bid. It wouldn't be honest to list a refurbished product using its non-refurbished model number.
2. Again, makes sense to me. Unless you're an entitled fool, you shouldn't expect a new product in place in a defective one after the return period is over. However, in this day and age there are too many entitled people around the world.
3. I wouldn't expect a refurbished product would be worth any less to someone. First of all, they wouldn't know it was refurbished in the first place and it works just as good as new. I've sold my old (now used) iPhones that were replace by Apple with a refurbished unit and got the same amount as others. Used is used...it doesn't matter whether its a refurbished or was new and is now considered used.
Things are NOT as black and white like what many people in this forum would like to call it out. There are Grey areas which need to be thought through. Say you bought a brand new iphone 6 plus in Jan-01-2017 along with apple care. Now after 4 months, the iphone 6 plus has a problem with one of the components and you go to Apple store and get an update that it cannot be repaired and it needs to be replaced. Now apple replaces it with a refurbished one which was in use for 2.5 years (from Sep-2014 till date). Apple says it is a like for like replacement because it is in working condition and looking good. As a customer, would you be happy? I am not saying all the cases belong to this category. The point is - there are grey areas which we are dealing with here. Just making a blanket statement - "Apple is right and customer is wrong" is not a fair statement IF you are ready to wear the hat of a customer (instead of a shareholder).
Refurbished always means "used" to me so if you're having device problems within the minimum warranty period and you have to bring it back to the Apple store, you should always get a new one as a replacement.
The thing that has puzzled me over the years is why Apple geniuses go out of their way to convince you the swapped device is not a "refurbished" one...
Whenever I've bought parts for appliances I've had the option of official new parts, reconditioned parts, second hand parts or compatible parts.
All reconditioned parts have suffered stress. It is impossible to evaluate that stress. It might pass a test today and fail tomorrow.
While any part can fail, and any time, I believe consumers should have a clear guarantee that their repairs are carried out with parts that are in the same state as when They were purchased.
Apple has an enormous amount of brand new parts available but reserves the right to use reconditioned parts as that's what works out better for the company. Until someone specifically challenges this practice we will never know just how acceptable it is.
It is not a question of whether something is new or not, or any devaluation in the product's monetary value.
That is, the product shipped with the defect but it only manifested itself at a later date. It is also a reason why I consider reconditioned parts that pass a test to be inadequate.
There is more to it than that of course. You cannot take a hammer to a device and then claim a warranty repair. But the general idea is that any new device that fails before six months is because of a factory defect.