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.
As they should be free to do -- at their discretion. If it's as old as a month or more, I wouldn't expect them to offer that courtesy.
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).
This scenario sounds bunk, I find it unlikely to occur IRL. More likely any refurb will be fairly new, not some old hunk of metal. Their stuff doesn't sit around stockpiled up.
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.
The conversation is on the issue of receiving a refurbished unit as a replacement for a defective new unit and the wider use of refurbished parts/units.
There is also the perspective of consumer laws themselves. Generally speaking, your average US consumer is less protected than your average EU consumer and this shines through in the comments. This particular kind of issue, unless I am mistaken, has already been dealt with by the EU's highest court. Apple has had many run ins with European Consumer Agencies and had to back down in virtually all of them.
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.
But it's not new -- if you bring in a device thats been used for months it's not a new device, it's now a used device.
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.
It doesn't work like that. Basically, if a fault develops within six months of purchase, the fault is deemed a manufacturing defect. After the six months, technically the manufacturer could ask the owner to demonstrate the fault existed in the factory although I haven't heard of many cases of that happening. Owners can also demand that the shop where the device was purchased also handle the guarantee process. Some EU countries offer even more stringent consumer protection.
It's more complicated than that but it will give you an idea.
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.
But it's not new -- if you bring in a device thats been used for months it's not a new device, it's now a used device.
The issue isn't whether it is new or not. Under EU consumer law any fault that occurs in the six months after purchase is deemed to be of factory origin. That is the unit was defective at sale but the defect hadn't manifested itself.
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.
Can you please elaborate on the bolded line a bit more? I don't get it.
New units that come off the assembly line are manufactured at scale. Which means that it's simply impossible to subject each individual unit through QA testing. So what companies does is they take a sample from a batch and test that sample. If the sample passes QA test, then the whole batch is assumed to pass as well.
Refurbish units are different. Apple disassembles and reassembles each refurb unit, testing every component along the way. Once assembled, each refurb unit goes through QA testing. This is why apple is still able to offer AppleCare on refurb units.
Dont confuse refurb units units with open box items from places like Best Buy. Open box items don't go back to apple and are sold "as is"
Now, I get the better tested part but still don't agree that component in a refurbed unit is objectively "better" than the component in a brand new unit. Simply because, the component in a refurbed unit has already undergone few "usage" cycles while the component in the new one has not. And components do NOT have infinite lifetime, so a new one will always have more life left in it than the one which is already used. I was more confused about the "more stable" part in your statement. Could you please elaborate on that part?
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.
unscrupulous companies like aapl count on the fact that people will not go to court for a $500 dispute and so they try to exploit the consumer as much as possible. With this woman not only she is under the manufacturer warranty but she paid extra warranty, the stupid apple care, so she basically paid almost twice for her initial iPad that broke. Getting a used device is unacceptable in her case. The comparison with the car that someone made does not make sense: You are still keeping your initial car although it has a part or two under the hood that were changed. You are not getting someon elses fixed and used car in exchange for your car..
Last year my iPhone 6S Plus died after 3-4 months and I had to drive a long way to the apple store. When I got there the phone was not replace right away and I was offered an inferior product on loan. I refused it since it did not have the capacity I needed and I purchased a brand new phone for a week to have to drive again and return it and receive a similar refurbished phone. At least in my case I did not have apple care. Apple had to repackage the brand new phone i returned or sell it open box to someone else so they lost money, but no matter how hard I tried they wouldn't let me keep the purchased identical one and refund me. They wanted me to drive again return that one and get another refurbished phone. In this case the brand new phone had the better chip that did not drain battery as fast and not heat up as much whereas the refurbished one came with the questionable chip. All this after I initially paid $1000 for a 'quality' phone.
name me a single consumer electronics company that replaces used products under warranty with a brand new replacement?
name me just one.
I've had both Logitech and Corsair replace products with brand new ones, Logitech most of the time doesn't even need you to send back the old product.
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.
This is untrue, the €409 is with taxes included, European stores hardly advertise prices without taxes, the only instance might be if the target audience is other companies. So comparing $329 to €409 is misleading since the $329 still needs added sales tax. Now the European product price will still be higher but that is also in part due to higher taxes in general.
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.
This is untrue, the €409 is with taxes included, European stores hardly advertise prices without taxes, the only instance might be if the target audience is other companies. So comparing $329 to €409 is misleading since the $329 still needs added sales tax. Now the European product price will still be higher but that is also in part due to higher taxes in general.
It is indeed €409 with taxes. My Dutch is a lot on the rusty side. The US amount is around $355 with taxes. The shopping cart shows "Inclusief btw € 70,98." I would suspect that Apple will be raising the price very soon due to this ruling.
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.
This is untrue, the €409 is with taxes included, European stores hardly advertise prices without taxes, the only instance might be if the target audience is other companies. So comparing $329 to €409 is misleading since the $329 still needs added sales tax. Now the European product price will still be higher but that is also in part due to higher taxes in general.
It is indeed €409 with taxes. My Dutch is a lot on the rusty side. The US amount is around $355 with taxes. The shopping cart shows "Inclusief btw € 70,98." I would suspect that Apple will be raising the price very soon due to this ruling.
It will have zero impact on pricing. Apple typically charges more but historically it has been because of other issues.
All electrical and electronic consumer goods are sold in the EU under the RoHS and WEEE directives. The means the cost of recycling these devices (including transport to a specialised facility) is already included in the price. Just one example why these goods are a tiny bit more expensive.
Obviously all products offered in this geographic region will be more expensive, which will simply drive people to travel to neighboring territories to buy instead. Apple should drop support for the entire area.
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.
While I agree with the sentiment, you nevertheless pepper your argument with some incorrect ideas, most egregious is your assertion about terms being spelled out in the warranty, it's a general principle of law that warranty terms cannot be used to circumvent the law. In Australia the law has deemed two years to be a minimum amount of time that a warranty on an expensive piece of computer equipment, namely a MacBook Pro should be covered for. When I bought my MBP I fully knew that Apple only warranted it for one year but I also knew that their assertion was fully irrelevant under Australian law, and thusly I saw no need for AppleCare as I'm basically just paying for the third year when I know it's most likely to go wrong within two years or after the third year. It duly failed before two years and I had logic board replaced and I even had the entire screen assembly replaced after the two years as I showed that the problem began before the two years was up. Moral of story, consumers should be aware of their rights.
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
The judge is wrong, period. When you bring the broken item back, unless it is broken out of the box, the item is no longer new. 'Replacing new for new' makes no sense for warranty repairs as the item is not 'new' any longer.
People who have had problems with multiple replacement iPads appreciate and applaud the judges' decision. I admit I would not have understood had I not experienced an insanely rapid power drain that was resolved only with a new device (and not once, but twice.) I can now understand the immense frustration of being given replacements that don't work; it's stressful to have to rush to find an outlet after a 100% charged battery empties in 3-5 hours. Or praying your work-related on-line meeting doesn't go black while attempting to charge a battery that's draining faster than it can be replenished. Or having to stop everything to spend hours at the store or on the phone with Apple techs and/or your carrier; doing repeat testing, demonstrating over and over to people in different departments the nature of the problem, backing up and setting up replacment devices, waiting while you try restoring from the Cloud, from iTunes, from an external hard drive, as new, etc, only to have the same problem resurface. After all that, it seems that replacing that defective high-end device with a new, non-defective device is not only desirable, but reasonable.
I appreciate the decision even more since a problem with my iPhone 7+ (which sounded to callers like I was under water) was not corrected though attempts were made through replacements. Perhaps a brand new device would have been the answer, but that was not offered as an option. As a voice-over artist, how I sound is critically important, so when I kept hearing that people were struggling to understand me, I had little choice but to go back to my old but trustworthy iPhone 5.
The latest problem I've encountered is with my attachable iPad Pro keyboard that flashes and dings wildly at times, usually when closed, for no apparent reason. We tried a replacement keyboard which at least unfroze the keys to allow me to type. Still, though less often, I continue to encounter the weird flash/ding thing. The store now believes it's a hardware issue and wants to give me a replacement iPad, but given the history I've had with replacements, I'm nervous that a replacement might again lead me to the dreaded battery drain issue.
I would love to continue to feel confident purchasing and using Apple products. Truthfully, I don't have an issue with refurbished, or even remanufactured, replacements provided they work as well and as long as an original model would be expected to. Even a policy that guarantees that if one or two replacement devices don't correct the problem (or introduce new ones) they'll automatically provide a brand new one would be helpful. When they work, Apple products are amazing - the best, in my opinion. But being such a huge part of our lives, it can be truly disturbing when these brilliant new devices don't deliver as designed.
It's not a big issue, Apple will simply not replace faulty units going forward. They will take the faulty unit away and repair it then return it to the customer. This will likely piss off more customers who are used to in store replacements than those who were annoyed by receiving a refurbished unit.
It's not a big issue, Apple will simply not replace faulty units going forward. They will take the faulty unit away and repair it then return it to the customer. This will likely piss off more customers who are used to in store replacements than those who were annoyed by receiving a refurbished unit.
I doubt Apple will willingly piss off its iDevice clients. Just like some car insurance polices, they could hand the client a courtesy unit while the faulty one is in for repair. Of course, the faulty unit should have the original guarantee extended by the amount of time the unit was away from the user and the part replaced should have it's own specific guarantee. On top of that, the faulty part should be handed back to the customer (hard disks and SSDs included) or be signed off by the customer.
It goes without saying that designing for greater repairability would be even better.
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
The judge is wrong, period. When you bring the broken item back, unless it is broken out of the box, the item is no longer new. 'Replacing new for new' makes no sense for warranty repairs as the item is not 'new' any longer.
The judge is definitely not wrong. The judge simply applied the law. A law that you clearly don't like.
All devices are subjected to some simple tests at the factory. One of them is to simply turn on.
If you accept that a device could turn on at the factory but be DOA for the customer out of a factory sealed box, you must surely accept the fact that some components can be faulty in a factory state but fail at a later date.
I've seen lots of graphics cards, hard disks and memory modules fail progressively but pass diagnostics tests.
EU consumer laws cater to this eventuality and give consumers clear rights.
On occasion, Apple tries to wriggle around the law, for example with every iPhone sold in brick and mortar Apple Stores when they try to sell AppleCare.
You are informed that the Apple standard warranty is xxx but that AppleCare is xxx (I've seen the periods vary depending on who the person is).
You are never informed that the standard EU warranty is two years and that that makes the standard Apple warranty irrelevant from the consumer rights perspective. AFAIK, Apple has lost every single case where AppleCare promotional material has been questioned by consumer organisations.
Comments
As they should be free to do -- at their discretion. If it's as old as a month or more, I wouldn't expect them to offer that courtesy.
This scenario sounds bunk, I find it unlikely to occur IRL. More likely any refurb will be fairly new, not some old hunk of metal. Their stuff doesn't sit around stockpiled up.
There is also the perspective of consumer laws themselves. Generally speaking, your average US consumer is less protected than your average EU consumer and this shines through in the comments. This particular kind of issue, unless I am mistaken, has already been dealt with by the EU's highest court. Apple has had many run ins with European Consumer Agencies and had to back down in virtually all of them.
But it's not new -- if you bring in a device thats been used for months it's not a new device, it's now a used device.
It's more complicated than that but it will give you an idea.
Now, I get the better tested part but still don't agree that component in a refurbed unit is objectively "better" than the component in a brand new unit. Simply because, the component in a refurbed unit has already undergone few "usage" cycles while the component in the new one has not. And components do NOT have infinite lifetime, so a new one will always have more life left in it than the one which is already used. I was more confused about the "more stable" part in your statement. Could you please elaborate on that part?
So comparing $329 to €409 is misleading since the $329 still needs added sales tax. Now the European product price will still be higher but that is also in part due to higher taxes in general.
All electrical and electronic consumer goods are sold in the EU under the RoHS and WEEE directives. The means the cost of recycling these devices (including transport to a specialised facility) is already included in the price. Just one example why these goods are a tiny bit more expensive.
Anyone spot the obvious irony there?
While I agree with the sentiment, you nevertheless pepper your argument with some incorrect ideas, most egregious is your assertion about terms being spelled out in the warranty, it's a general principle of law that warranty terms cannot be used to circumvent the law. In Australia the law has deemed two years to be a minimum amount of time that a warranty on an expensive piece of computer equipment, namely a MacBook Pro should be covered for. When I bought my MBP I fully knew that Apple only warranted it for one year but I also knew that their assertion was fully irrelevant under Australian law, and thusly I saw no need for AppleCare as I'm basically just paying for the third year when I know it's most likely to go wrong within two years or after the third year. It duly failed before two years and I had logic board replaced and I even had the entire screen assembly replaced after the two years as I showed that the problem began before the two years was up. Moral of story, consumers should be aware of their rights.
The judge is wrong, period. When you bring the broken item back, unless it is broken out of the box, the item is no longer new. 'Replacing new for new' makes no sense for warranty repairs as the item is not 'new' any longer.
It goes without saying that designing for greater repairability would be even better.
All devices are subjected to some simple tests at the factory. One of them is to simply turn on.
If you accept that a device could turn on at the factory but be DOA for the customer out of a factory sealed box, you must surely accept the fact that some components can be faulty in a factory state but fail at a later date.
I've seen lots of graphics cards, hard disks and memory modules fail progressively but pass diagnostics tests.
EU consumer laws cater to this eventuality and give consumers clear rights.
On occasion, Apple tries to wriggle around the law, for example with every iPhone sold in brick and mortar Apple Stores when they try to sell AppleCare.
You are informed that the Apple standard warranty is xxx but that AppleCare is xxx (I've seen the periods vary depending on who the person is).
You are never informed that the standard EU warranty is two years and that that makes the standard Apple warranty irrelevant from the consumer rights perspective. AFAIK, Apple has lost every single case where AppleCare promotional material has been questioned by consumer organisations.