I'm generally on the side of the plaintiff. I've taken several computers with problems to Apple, with Apple Care or under warranty, only to have them replace the defective parts with refurbs, regardless of the the age of the product. One "fully-tested" refurb motherboard destroyed an external FW disk due to a defective controller--a problem readily found at the Genius Bar with Apple diagnostics. One time Apple replaced the screen on a laptop with a screen with an obvious visual defect. (Apple did this when I sent my computer in to test its WiFi card.) If you break your phone, like the plaintiff here, the terms are pretty clear about what Apple is going to do. However, if Apple supplies you with a defective part, Apple should replace it with a new part.
I'm generally with you. I've gotten bad refurbs as well. But this crazy lady never even had her iPhone replaced because of a defect, just a cracked screen! How does that show that apples refurbs aren't like new? As this article shows it she currently has 0 evidence to back up her claim. Unless apple insider doesn't have all the info.
When my Mac Pro (older tower model) had a defective memory riser 6 months into it, and they could not get a new one in after 2 weeks of waiting (new memory riser) the local Apple Store sat down and ordered me a brand new Mac Pro from the online Apple store. With all the bells and whistles etc.
I bought a refurb Mac mini (core solo) 10 years ago. Still going strong with my MIL.
Have had a couple iPhones (1 times original, 2x3GS, 1x5) replaced due to defects (never due to broken screen). Phones I got were indistinguishable from new. The 5 I still use as a dev phone and it works great and performs great. Don't know if it was a refurb or not.
I am very happy camper when it comes to Apple Care.
I don't know what this lady expects, but the terms specifically allow refurbished products that meet new performance specs.
Breaking your phone THREE times indicates a problem with handling on the customer's end. I'm careful with my possessions. I see no reason why the average person can't be the same. If you have a disability, that's understandable. If your phone is at risk via employment being rough, the employer should supply the device.
That said, I STRONGLY feel that warranty replacements (maybe not user damage replacements) should be REQUIRED by law to be a completely NEW item, NOT a refurb!!
Also, I wonder if newer OS versions make "replacements" seem slower than the warranty holder's original... There's a reason I've not "upgraded" to iOS 7. Several, in fact.
I've never found an Apple refurb to be not comparable to new. I actually think they're up at the top in terms of quality in their refurbished equipment. I hope this gets thrown out.
I wish someone would have asked the ambulance chasing attorney what is unacceptable about "refurbished," since it's a device that is in, for all practical purposes, new condition and meets the standards of the new product.
AppleInsider? As journalists, you need to ask questions and not just post statements or press releases without providing balanced coverage.
That said, I STRONGLY feel that warranty replacements (maybe not user damage replacements) should be REQUIRED by law to be a completely NEW item, NOT a refurb!!
OK, so all apple need to do is replace the parts broken/suspect with a brand new part not a refurb
So in the ladies case they can replace the broken screen with a brand new screen assembly, while retaining her existing phone
I however have no issues with Apple supplying a refurb if the device is fully guaranteed, and certified 'as new'
I've had an iPhone 5 come brand new with a CPU that crashed every 3 hours, apple of course replaced with brand new
My iPhone 6 plus was replaced when the volume buttons stuck, the 'refurb' was newer than my one, and to this day I've had no issues
Apple however clearly state on the conditions that they may use refurbished parts, as such the user should have read these conditions and if not accepting them returned her phone etc.
Breaking your phone THREE times indicates a problem with handling on the customer's end. I'm careful with my possessions. I see no reason why the average person can't be the same. If you have a disability, that's understandable. If your phone is at risk via employment being rough, the employer should supply the device.
That said, I STRONGLY feel that warranty replacements (maybe not user damage replacements) should be REQUIRED by law to be a completely NEW item, NOT a refurb!!
Also, I wonder if newer OS versions make "replacements" seem slower than the warranty holder's original... There's a reason I've not "upgraded" to iOS 7. Several, in fact.
Why should a replacement always be a new unit? Let's say your device has a 1-year warranty and it breaks on day 360. It certainly was not brand new when it broke, the only obligation should be to get you a suitably working replacement in similar condition or better. Virtually (and I say virtually because there's probably an exception somewhere) every warranty ever written says that they can be replaced with new or refurbished product. Remember, they don't have to offer a warranty at all just as you don't have to buy it. That all said, Apple probably has the cleanest refurbs in the electronics business.
This should not even have been accepted by the Court as being legal-worthy! It is standard practice for any product provide to furnish a replacment with new or like-new equivalent parts. Who spawned such a idiolt creature?
Says right in the AppleCare agreement that replacements might be new or refurbished. If you buy the service agreement, you sign it, you accepted the terms. Don't like the terms, don't pay the money.
MANY companies do this, including Cell phone companies, Computer, etc..
Bet they are hoping Apple just rolls over and pays out.. smells fishy.
This should not even have been accepted by the Court as being legal-worthy! It is standard practice for any product provide to furnish a replacment with new or like-new equivalent parts. Who spawned such a idiolt creature?
What plaintiff is saying is that Apple isnt providing new or like new.
Why should a replacement always be a new unit? Let's say your device has a 1-year warranty and it breaks on day 360. It certainly was not brand new when it broke, the only obligation should be to get you a suitably working replacement in similar condition or better. Virtually (and I say virtually because there's probably an exception somewhere) every warranty ever written says that they can be replaced with new or refurbished product. Remember, they don't have to offer a warranty at all just as you don't have to buy it. That all said, Apple probably has the cleanest refurbs in the electronics business.
Yup, yup and yup.. I've purchased referb from their online store many times, been totally happy. You can even qualify for full AppleCare if you get referbs directly from Apple. LOL Oh the irony.
How is refurbished not equivalent to new in performance and reliability?
In a sense you end up better off than you where before you broke the machine due to refurbish coming with new batteries! The battery is the only thing that really suffers from wear. Frankly anybody that joins this class action suit ought to hand a sign around their neck say I'm an idiot, a klutz, and go out of my way to blame others.
The fact that the screen broke twice is an indicator that the user is a careless person, more than the replacement phone is the cause of the issue. 3 broken screens in 2 years? Yeah, let's sue Apple for millions because the spoiled brat daughter can't take care of her devices.
Sadly there is a potential of actually winning a case like this. So much depends upon the lawyers ability to manipulate people to agreeing with his perspective.
Of all the I devices I've owned over the years the only unit I've ever broken a screen on was my iPad. I knew exactly what happened and couldn't rationally blame anybody else. Thus a trip to the Apple store for a replacement and a screen replacement fee. In this case it probably was less than 45 minutes in the store and I was ready to go again. How can one complain about that?
Talk about a sense of entitlement this woman must be a democrat!
Says right in the AppleCare agreement that replacements might be new or refurbished. If you buy the service agreement, you sign it, you accepted the terms. Don't like the terms, don't pay the money.
MANY companies do this, including Cell phone companies, Computer, etc..
Bet they are hoping Apple just rolls over and pays out.. smells fishy.
d. Replacement Parts and Products. In the event Apple repairs or replaces your Covered Equipment, you understand and agree that the replacement product and parts that Apple provides may be manufactured from new, refurbished, or serviceable used parts. The replacement product and parts will be functionally equivalent to the replaced products or parts and will assume the remaining coverage under the Plan. The parts and products that are replaced become Apple’s property.
I had both my iPhone 4 and my iPhone 5 replaced under warranty. The 4's camera failed, and the 5 had problems with the sleep/wake button. Each time I clearly got a refurb product, which was fine. It looked new and functioned new. Apple isn't kidding when it says it's refurb products are tested to both appear and function like new products. I don't see how one can claim that they are not "equivalent to new." They absolutely are.
If, by chance, anyone commenting on the above aforementioned article, or had similar experiences with Apple Care as I have.........the attorney representing Ms. McRight is Ms Renee Kennedy @ 832-428-1552.
Doesn't seem as if the broken screen is the issue. Just that she received a refurb because of a broken screen and the refurb was not up to par, not that the refurb screen broke (her last one did not break). Also, the complaint talks about the iPhone 6 and the screen broke and she got a refurb. Nothing is noted about the last iPhone 6 refurb ending up with a broken screen. Just that it was not good quality.
Nothing is noted about how the quality of these refurbs are poor. I have had a few refurbs and can't tell the difference from a new one.
Unbelievable. Anyone who has ever purchased an official Apple factory refurbished product knows that it's indistinguishable from a new one, the only difference is the box it comes in. I don't have a problem denouncing Apple's policies when they're abusive, but this is ridiculous and completely unfounded. Just more money for the lawyers, I guess.
I don't get what the lawyer is arguing. Is it that if you break the screen apple is to replace it with a brand new phone? Or that apple was not using new parts when replacing the screen?
Comments
When my Mac Pro (older tower model) had a defective memory riser 6 months into it, and they could not get a new one in after 2 weeks of waiting (new memory riser) the local Apple Store sat down and ordered me a brand new Mac Pro from the online Apple store. With all the bells and whistles etc.
I bought a refurb Mac mini (core solo) 10 years ago. Still going strong with my MIL.
Have had a couple iPhones (1 times original, 2x3GS, 1x5) replaced due to defects (never due to broken screen). Phones I got were indistinguishable from new. The 5 I still use as a dev phone and it works great and performs great. Don't know if it was a refurb or not.
I am very happy camper when it comes to Apple Care.
I don't know what this lady expects, but the terms specifically allow refurbished products that meet new performance specs.
That said, I STRONGLY feel that warranty replacements (maybe not user damage replacements) should be REQUIRED by law to be a completely NEW item, NOT a refurb!!
Also, I wonder if newer OS versions make "replacements" seem slower than the warranty holder's original... There's a reason I've not "upgraded" to iOS 7. Several, in fact.
AppleInsider? As journalists, you need to ask questions and not just post statements or press releases without providing balanced coverage.
Peace,
Gene
That said, I STRONGLY feel that warranty replacements (maybe not user damage replacements) should be REQUIRED by law to be a completely NEW item, NOT a refurb!!
OK, so all apple need to do is replace the parts broken/suspect with a brand new part not a refurb
So in the ladies case they can replace the broken screen with a brand new screen assembly, while retaining her existing phone
I however have no issues with Apple supplying a refurb if the device is fully guaranteed, and certified 'as new'
I've had an iPhone 5 come brand new with a CPU that crashed every 3 hours, apple of course replaced with brand new
My iPhone 6 plus was replaced when the volume buttons stuck, the 'refurb' was newer than my one, and to this day I've had no issues
Apple however clearly state on the conditions that they may use refurbished parts, as such the user should have read these conditions and if not accepting them returned her phone etc.
Breaking your phone THREE times indicates a problem with handling on the customer's end. I'm careful with my possessions. I see no reason why the average person can't be the same. If you have a disability, that's understandable. If your phone is at risk via employment being rough, the employer should supply the device.
That said, I STRONGLY feel that warranty replacements (maybe not user damage replacements) should be REQUIRED by law to be a completely NEW item, NOT a refurb!!
Also, I wonder if newer OS versions make "replacements" seem slower than the warranty holder's original... There's a reason I've not "upgraded" to iOS 7. Several, in fact.
Why should a replacement always be a new unit? Let's say your device has a 1-year warranty and it breaks on day 360. It certainly was not brand new when it broke, the only obligation should be to get you a suitably working replacement in similar condition or better. Virtually (and I say virtually because there's probably an exception somewhere) every warranty ever written says that they can be replaced with new or refurbished product. Remember, they don't have to offer a warranty at all just as you don't have to buy it. That all said, Apple probably has the cleanest refurbs in the electronics business.
MANY companies do this, including Cell phone companies, Computer, etc..
Bet they are hoping Apple just rolls over and pays out.. smells fishy.
What plaintiff is saying is that Apple isnt providing new or like new.
I think she's being a little bit silly myself.
Why should a replacement always be a new unit? Let's say your device has a 1-year warranty and it breaks on day 360. It certainly was not brand new when it broke, the only obligation should be to get you a suitably working replacement in similar condition or better. Virtually (and I say virtually because there's probably an exception somewhere) every warranty ever written says that they can be replaced with new or refurbished product. Remember, they don't have to offer a warranty at all just as you don't have to buy it. That all said, Apple probably has the cleanest refurbs in the electronics business.
Yup, yup and yup.. I've purchased referb from their online store many times, been totally happy. You can even qualify for full AppleCare if you get referbs directly from Apple. LOL Oh the irony.
Sadly there is a potential of actually winning a case like this. So much depends upon the lawyers ability to manipulate people to agreeing with his perspective.
Of all the I devices I've owned over the years the only unit I've ever broken a screen on was my iPad. I knew exactly what happened and couldn't rationally blame anybody else. Thus a trip to the Apple store for a replacement and a screen replacement fee. In this case it probably was less than 45 minutes in the store and I was ready to go again. How can one complain about that?
Talk about a sense of entitlement this woman must be a democrat!
Says right in the AppleCare agreement that replacements might be new or refurbished. If you buy the service agreement, you sign it, you accepted the terms. Don't like the terms, don't pay the money.
MANY companies do this, including Cell phone companies, Computer, etc..
Bet they are hoping Apple just rolls over and pays out.. smells fishy.
YES. And if you don't mind, I'll expand on that.
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/APPTermsConditions.pdf
(the agreement from 2005. I don't imagine it's changed much in terms of the current discussion.)
Italics are mine.
----------------------
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/APPTermsConditions.pdf
2. Repair or Replacement Service Provided
d. Replacement Parts and Products. In the event Apple repairs or replaces your Covered Equipment, you understand and agree that the replacement product and parts that Apple provides may be manufactured from new, refurbished, or serviceable used parts. The replacement product and parts will be functionally equivalent to the replaced products or parts and will assume the remaining coverage under the Plan. The parts and products that are replaced become Apple’s property.
--------------------
Speaking of silly, your comparison would seem to fit the bill.
Also, the complaint talks about the iPhone 6 and the screen broke and she got a refurb. Nothing is noted about the last iPhone 6 refurb ending up with a broken screen. Just that it was not good quality.
Nothing is noted about how the quality of these refurbs are poor.
I have had a few refurbs and can't tell the difference from a new one.