Yet a second post accusing Apple of wrongdoing without any explanation as to how they know Apple did wrong. It's interesting to see how many Apple haters want to dog pile merely because of yet unsubstantiated claims.
It's interesting to see how Apple fans turn on Apple customers when they may have been wronged. The Apple apologists sure do come out in droves when their reverent Apple is "attacked".
How have these customers been wronged? I’m no apple apologist, but Apple appears to have followed its contract perfectly. I would also note that providing refurbished items as warranty replacements is not at all uncommon in the industry, so Apple’s practice is not outside the norm here, either.
I buy mainly refurbished Apple products. Many people, including myself, believe that refurbished items are superior to new, because they have been individually inspected and tested. These are not used cars, where it is "certified pre-owned". These are, for all practical purposes, new units.
That’s a good way to put it. I try to get Refurbished as well, just because I know its been looked at specifically.
It's interesting to see how Apple fans turn on Apple customers when they may have been wronged. The Apple apologists sure do come out in droves when their reverent Apple is "attacked".
This guy is trolling too, they always come out to waste their time doing crap like this instead of trying to be productive members of society, if they can be...
This is about a contact Apple has with its customers, Apple did not follow its own agreement.
Please read the verbiage and tell us how they did not follow the contract.
It doesn't matter how I understand the contract, I am not a lawyer but a judge says Apple is wrong here.
OMFG, please tell me you’re not that dense... Can you not think for yourself???
Go read the F’ing agreement, specifically focusing on the part about replacement devices, and maybe have Wikipedia or a dictionary open while you do it so you can grasp what is being said there...
BTW, the judge has NOT said Apple is wrong here; all the judge has done is grant class-status to the case, THAT’S ALL! There is ZERO claim of guilt on the part of any plaintiff!
It's interesting to see how Apple fans turn on Apple customers when they may have been wronged. The Apple apologists sure do come out in droves when their reverent Apple is "attacked".
How have these customers been wronged? I’m no apple apologist, but Apple appears to have followed its contract perfectly. I would also note that providing refurbished items as warranty replacements is not at all uncommon in the industry, so Apple’s practice is not outside the norm here, either.
Refurbished items as warranty replacements are not uncommon at all. When the original fat PS3 model came out, the laser went out on the blu ray drive after 5 or 6 months I believe. Sony sent me a refurbished replacement with the same warranty as a new model. I think there is a certain stigma attached to the word refurbished.
This is about a contact Apple has with its customers, Apple did not follow its own agreement.
It didn't? Pretty damned clear to me... "equivalentto new in performance and reliability." Does not mean "brand-new" In fact, it actually implies "not brand new".
And Apple clearly stands behind their refurbished devices... They sell refurbished devices in their store with the exact same warranty as a brand new device.
This is about a contact Apple has with its customers, Apple did not follow its own agreement.
Yes they did. They did not say you’d get a new one in the contract. Only that you’d get one equivalent to new in performance and reliability. No breach by Apple. Good luck to the lawyers showing that these Apple returbs are less than equivalent to new performance and reliability
It's interesting to see how Apple fans turn on Apple customers when they may have been wronged. The Apple apologists sure do come out in droves when their reverent Apple is "attacked".
No one is attacking Apple customers who have been wronged. The Apple “customers” are trying to rip Apple off. No evidence has been presented or offered or even hinted at that the customers were actually wronged. Just lack of English skills shown by said customers and their legal reps.
This is about a contact Apple has with its customers, Apple did not follow its own agreement.
Please read the verbiage and tell us how they did not follow the contract.
It doesn't matter how I understand the contract, I am not a lawyer but a judge says Apple is wrong here.
OMFG, please tell me you’re not that dense... Can you not think for yourself???
Go read the F’ing agreement, specifically focusing on the part about replacement devices, and maybe have Wikipedia or a dictionary open while you do it so you can grasp what is being said there...
BTW, the judge has NOT said Apple is wrong here; all the judge has done is grant class-status to the case, THAT’S ALL! There is ZERO claim of guilt on the part of any plaintiff!
Thank you for saving me the reply! Of course, this is the same guy who’s mad that his phone broke when it fell on the floor, unprotected, and is also mad that Apple won’t give him full value for a phone with a broken back. Hmm.... Troll? Dense? Dense troll?
I buy mainly refurbished Apple products. Many people, including myself, believe that refurbished items are superior to new, because they have been individually inspected and tested. These are not used cars, where it is "certified pre-owned". These are, for all practical purposes, new units.
All the Mac computer purchases for my family are refurbished. I have done so for the reasons you mentioned; Apple refurbished contain new parts (including outer case/shell-battery), are thoroughly cleaned or were unused returns and have a thorough inspection.
What is happening with this court case is that certain people are uninformed about Apple refurbished products. There is an unsupported belief that Apple refurbished are inferior to new products. This is false. Apple refurbished is equivalent to new in terms of performance and reliability.
I cannot speak for iOS devices, but between my wife and I, work and home, we currently have nine Macs. Four of these were purchased refurbished and all of the refurbs have looked new and more importantly, they have been stellar performers in terms of reliability, not a single lemon among the cohort.
I attribute this to the more rigorous testing I suspect they go through before sale.
Comments
This guy is trolling too, they always come out to waste their time doing crap like this instead of trying to be productive members of society, if they can be...
Go read the F’ing agreement, specifically focusing on the part about replacement devices, and maybe have Wikipedia or a dictionary open while you do it so you can grasp what is being said there...
BTW, the judge has NOT said Apple is wrong here; all the judge has done is grant class-status to the case, THAT’S ALL! There is ZERO claim of guilt on the part of any plaintiff!
It didn't? Pretty damned clear to me... "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." Does not mean "brand-new" In fact, it actually implies "not brand new".
And Apple clearly stands behind their refurbished devices... They sell refurbished devices in their store with the exact same warranty as a brand new device.
I have done so for the reasons you mentioned; Apple refurbished contain new parts (including outer case/shell-battery), are thoroughly cleaned or were unused returns and have a thorough inspection.
What is happening with this court case is that certain people are uninformed about Apple refurbished products.
There is an unsupported belief that Apple refurbished are inferior to new products.
This is false.
Apple refurbished is equivalent to new in terms of performance and reliability.
I attribute this to the more rigorous testing I suspect they go through before sale.
The judge should have dismissed this lawsuit.