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.
This decision is total crap. The unit being repaired was not brand new. It presumably has 3, 6 or 9 months of use on it before it is replaced. It is perfectly reasonable to replace a non-new device with a refurbished device. DOA out of the box is one thing, but a used device should not require a new replacement. Do these people expect the new replacement unit to have it's own full warranty now, guaranteeing these people will pretty much be guaranteed a new device at least once a year?!
In Europe we have things called consumer guarantees, that legally require items to last and work as required for a respectable length of time relative to it's price etc. If you bought a brand new car and within 4 months it had gearbox issues, would you be happy if the garage just swapped it for a 2nd hand car of the same spec? You've essentially paid for a new car (ipad in this case) and received a 2nd hand car (refurb), I don't know anyone who would be OK with that.
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).
Actually, that exact scenario DID happen to me -- except with an Original Series Apple Watch that I bought in September but the haptic engine stopped working in January. Apple replaced it with a refurbished unit -- which works just fine for me and I am perfectly happy with -- and that continues the warranty Apple Care I had on the original watch. ... And I am a customer rather than a share holder....
So sorry, while I agree that not all things are black and white, I obviously reject your argument and your example.
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).
Actually, that exact scenario DID happen to me -- except with an Original Series Apple Watch that I bought in September but the haptic engine stopped working in January. Apple replaced it with a refurbished unit -- which works just fine for me and I am perfectly happy with -- and that continues the warranty Apple Care I had on the original watch. ... And I am a customer rather than a share holder....
So sorry, while I agree that not all things are black and white, I obviously reject your argument and your example.
If you are satisfied, good for you. But don't expect everyone else in the world to be like you. There would be some disgruntled users in the exact same scenario with valid reasons.
name me a single consumer electronics company that replaces used products under warranty with a brand new replacement?
name me just one.
Fitbit. My wife's Charge HR had the clip come off and they shipped a new one no questions asked, no return required. Still a crappy item though because the same thing broke on the replacement 15 months after the first one was purchased. I guess it helps if you sell nearly disposable items.
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.
Nope! That scenario is not bunk at all -- because it happened to me with an Apple Watch that was purchased in September and broke in January and was replaced with a refurbished unit. Was that unit 2.5 years old? No, because the Apple Watch had not been around for that long. But it may have been 2.25 years old -- there is absolutely no way for me to know how old it was...
But, it looks and works perfectly -- like new. And, it is covered by the same warranty and AppleCare as the original. So, I am perfectly satisfied with it. Apple did a good job standing behind their product.
This is an interesting decision and probably deserves an open mind. However, if the customer has agreed to legal terms, the judge should respect that unless there is extreme duress or malfeasance. This seems to be a case where people have assumed that, since Apple is profitable, they can afford any expense at no cost. There is no regard for other things Apple can do with that money which might be more important. It's a slippery "this is why we can't have nice things" scenario. For instance, it could lead to the end of exchanges for broken products; or tighter restrictions on which types of damage are replaced.
This is an interesting decision and probably deserves an open mind. However, if the customer has agreed to legal terms, the judge should respect that unless there is extreme duress or malfeasance. This seems to be a case where people have assumed that, since Apple is profitable, they can afford any expense at no cost. There is no regard for other things Apple can do with that money which might be more important. It's a slippery "this is why we can't have nice things" scenario. For instance, it could lead to the end of exchanges for broken products; or tighter restrictions on which types of damage are replaced.
It's the law and is applied to everyone equally. What it could lead to isn't really important. If Apple wants to go above and beyond what is guaranteed by law, it can, if it wants to go in the opposite direction, it can - as long as it complies with the law.
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 is your claim and perhaps very uneducated on hardware technology (mind I have design degree from electronics department). The components have life and especuially monitors have life-span due to aging and use. How do you judge that refarbiushed unit is on the same level as defective one?
In general, European rules do not allow for easy warranty claims (you can't just use it, break it by "accident" and return becuase evaluation is required to grant warranty actions). However, if warranty is honored then unit has to be new. I am not sure what is to understand. I think you need to stick out a bit head and live in Europe to understand how it works outside America (I happen to spent half life and get education in Europe and most of my professional life in the USA learning differences).
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.
i almost always buy refurb macs from apple. nice savings, great machines.
Not when it has display. Also all electronic components have lifespan and it is not 50 years this days. It used to be like that in my young times (yes components lived longer than today's Made in China components, but you would need to study process of aging them and why they are so cheap today). Granted that Appple uses top quality components, still their screens become yellowish after some time and batteries do not last as long unless repalced with new once. Flash drives also have ucycles to end of life just like old traditional disks.
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.
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.
So the entire iPad goes into the garbage bin?
Is that a rhetorical question?
If Apple deemed it unrepairable, it is Apple's problem but they don't put them in the garbage bin. It is illegal.
Comments
... And I am a customer rather than a share holder....
So sorry, while I agree that not all things are black and white, I obviously reject your argument and your example.
If you are satisfied, good for you. But don't expect everyone else in the world to be like you. There would be some disgruntled users in the exact same scenario with valid reasons.
But, it looks and works perfectly -- like new. And, it is covered by the same warranty and AppleCare as the original. So, I am perfectly satisfied with it. Apple did a good job standing behind their product.
In general, European rules do not allow for easy warranty claims (you can't just use it, break it by "accident" and return becuase evaluation is required to grant warranty actions). However, if warranty is honored then unit has to be new. I am not sure what is to understand. I think you need to stick out a bit head and live in Europe to understand how it works outside America (I happen to spent half life and get education in Europe and most of my professional life in the USA learning differences).
If Apple deemed it unrepairable, it is Apple's problem but they don't put them in the garbage bin. It is illegal.