Refurbished has NEVER "by definition" been the same as NEW. I am an Apple fan , but Apple and you, SpamSandwich, are full of yourselves. Almost 25,000 posts supports my statement. Let's leave Moses and others out of this stupid thread.....
Someone's stupid for not catching the reference. And no, you are entitled to nothing.
Just a week ago, Apple lost a lawsuit in the Netherlands to a woman for exactly the same reason. During the warranty period, her broken iPhone 6s could not be repaired and was replaced by a refurbished one . She complained and won the trial. The judge ordered Apple to provide a new iPhone or to pay the full value of a new iPhone (799 Euro) to the woman.
Just a week ago, Apple lost a lawsuit in the Netherlands to a woman for exactly the same reason. During the warranty period, her broken iPhone 6s could not be repaired and was replaced by a refurbished one . She complained and won the trial. The judge ordered Apple to provide a new iPhone or to pay the full value of a new iPhone (799 Euro) to the woman.
Yes, but no one considers socialist countries to be reasonable, so this is irrelevant.
The problem is not with the coverage but with the marketing of the coverage. Apples in using the term "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" is avoiding the term 'refurbished'. To most consumers, non geek types, the former implies new while the latter implies used and repaired. Apples needs to be clear that if your unit breaks down, they will give you another unit that has broken down and was fixed. Your unit will be fixed and passed on to someone else. The ironic part is if the 'refurbished' unit breaks down, Apple will simply claim that it is equivalent in performance to a new unit because the new unit had broken down. If Apple were clear about what is being replaced with what, the consumer could decide whether they would pay extra to have their malfunctioning unit being replaced with a repaired malfunctioning unit. It's all in the language, my lovely.
The article suggests the lawsuit will center on the definition of refurbished. Really? The lawsuit should focus on evidence, if there is any, that proves the refurbished product she received was NOT functionally equivalent to new. I'd be very interested to learn what aspects of an electronic computer device, which runs all the exact same software at the same clock speeds, etc, could possibly be defined as not functionally equivalent to every other one in existence.
Maybe the speaker surface has deteriorated and will not last as long as a new one?
Maybe she can somehow ascertain there's only 4,322,568 more clicks of the Home button where a new Home button would yield more lifetime remaining clicks?
But these are inconsequential, as a person with AppleCare could simple get another replacement should some physical part wear out sooner than a new one would have. And These examples would not be supportive of her case, as functionally equivalent implies a part's current status, not its remaining lifespan. If pressing the Home button on a refurb feels and functions the same as on a new device, then it's functionally equivalent. Even if ten presses later it dies, though that would speak to the equivalent reliability aspect. So let's see if this is where the lawyers go.
Here is the thing, they are saying it impacts value. Yet, I have had many iPhones (and other iOS devices over the years), and sold several through gazelle or the like. Know what they NEVER ask you? Is this a warranty replacement/refurbishment device? They ask if the battery works. They ask if the screen is cracked. So on that ground alone they are wrong. And every site like gazelle is proof there is no financial difference.
Let's say you take your iPad in because the Wi-Fi isn't working. They give you a "replacement" iPad and take your old one back. If the old one is sent off to have the Wi-Fi part replaced then it is now considered "refurbished".
My understanding is that replacement iPhones/iPads are not refurbished and you cannot actually get any refurbished finished goods at an Apple Store.
If if you read the AppleCare quote posted by VisualSeed notice it says "...(a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product..." (Emphasis mine)
I believe "parts" is referring to parts for Macs (and possibly iPhones). As iPads are not repaired in store, you get a replacement product. Apple's language is pretty clear to differentiate between refurbished parts and replacement products.
There is a difference here and I don't think it's in the plaintiff's favor.
"Refurbished" by definition isn't the same as "new".
I agree, but I've been too miserly to spend on new when refurbs are available.
- Mac Mini mid-2010. Refurb from Apple.com, back in 2011. I'm typing on it, it's been perfect all this time. (I'm on my second Dell monitor, but that's a different story.) - Two MacBooks Pro 13", same vintage as the Mac Mini. Same refurb arrangement (and the same internals as the Mac Mini, IIRC). Both are used daily by their original owners. - iPad 3, another refurb from apple.com. Flawless for the year I owned it. - iPad Air 2 - the only *new* item I've purchased... also flawless for the 18 months I owned it. - iPad Pro 12.9" - purchased as open-box, but with full Apple warranty nonetheless. Need I say... flawless.
In short, I have a hard time believing that Apple might have separate "tiers" of refurb: one for warranty replacement, one for retail.
Hey, my iPad Air 2 is a refurbished unit that I bought from the online Apple Store. Never did have any problems with it. It's been rock solid (yeah, there is a poster here with a fun name here). I couldn't afford the price for a new one. I praise Apple for their quality control for the refurbished units.
Really one can't tell the difference except for the box the refurb unit came in. Still one receives the standard accessories that a new unit has.
Unless they drop the phone the minute they open it, her phone wasn't new. In fact the refurbished ones in some aspects are probably better, precisely because they've been examined. Some people are never happy.
Looks like I got lied to. My wife's out of warranty iPhone 5c died and was offered a "new" replacement. I asked if the phone was new? I got told yes. Not refurbished? I got told no, it is new. Sucker died in 6 months and store will not stand behind it. Lied to 3 different times.
If Apple's policy is stated as "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" then the refurbished units are perfectly suitable replacements as long as they are still within their expected service life and Apple has confirmed that the replacement unit meets the same performance requirements as new units. Unless there is a hardware component failure or physical damage, e.g. water infiltration, hammer blows, 45 degree bend in case, etc., getting a refurbished unit back to the same performance level as a new unit is simply a matter of erasing everything on the refurb and reinstalling the base operating system and pre-installed applications. The reliability of the refurb is already equivalent.
It really is this simple, and as I pointed out earlier, the probabilistic failure rate of a brand new unit is actually higher than the failure rate of a refurbished unit that has survived the infant mortality period. These failure rate probability characteristics are based on decades of real-world data, not marketing mumbo jumbo. Random failures will always occur that seem to defy the expectations established by the statistical data. But as a mentor taught me very early in my career - "random is random," so don't try to assign causality when all of the observed data is well within the constraints of the statistical model. Unless of course there are hammer blow marks, vice jaw imprints, turd remnants, or an unidentifiable liquid dripping from a phone that has been presented as suffering from an inexplicable "random failure" from out of the blue that belies the customer's claim that the phone spends its entire waking life gently lounging on a goose down filled velvet pillow.
Refurbished has NEVER "by definition" been the same as NEW. I am an Apple fan , but Apple and you, SpamSandwich, are full of yourselves. Almost 25,000 posts supports my statement. Let's leave Moses and others out of this stupid thread.....
But the one you returned was not NEW -- unless it didn't work right out of the box ...
My Mercedes has a 5-year warranty. If I get a dent, Daimler should replace it with a new one ... Why? Because I'm self-entitled, that's why!
Let's say you take your iPad in because the Wi-Fi isn't working. They give you a "replacement" iPad and take your old one back. If the old one is sent off to have the Wi-Fi part replaced then it is now considered "refurbished".
My understanding is that replacement iPhones/iPads are not refurbished and you cannot actually get any refurbished finished goods at an Apple Store.
If if you read the AppleCare quote posted by VisualSeed notice it says "...(a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product..." (Emphasis mine)
I believe "parts" is referring to parts for Macs (and possibly iPhones). As iPads are not repaired in store, you get a replacement product. Apple's language is pretty clear to differentiate between refurbished parts and replacement products.
There is a difference here and I don't think it's in the plaintiff's favor.
The stores do carry refurbished items but they don't sell them like the online store does.
Let's say you take your iPad in because the Wi-Fi isn't working. They give you a "replacement" iPad and take your old one back. If the old one is sent off to have the Wi-Fi part replaced then it is now considered "refurbished".
My understanding is that replacement iPhones/iPads are not refurbished and you cannot actually get any refurbished finished goods at an Apple Store.
If if you read the AppleCare quote posted by VisualSeed notice it says "...(a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product..." (Emphasis mine)
I believe "parts" is referring to parts for Macs (and possibly iPhones). As iPads are not repaired in store, you get a replacement product. Apple's language is pretty clear to differentiate between refurbished parts and replacement products.
There is a difference here and I don't think it's in the plaintiff's favor.
The stores do carry refurbished items but they don't sell them like the online store does.
"Items" yes, finished goods no.
if people believe they are getting a refurbished iPad when they get a service replacement then they don't fully understand what they are getting and what refurbished means.
If my AppleCare+ device has broken within the dates in the warranty just give me a NEW device. I bought a NEW Device not a "refurbished" device. This is a stupid thread. Hope they win their lawsuit. Dumb.....
If you broke it, you're not entitled to a brand new replacement.
If it broke on its own (warranty claim, not accidental damage), then yes, one should be entitled. If your original unit fails toward the end of your AppleCare+ warranty period (within the last 90 days of the 2 year coverage), the refurbished replacement unit is only covered for 90 days (i.e., maximum of 89 days beyond the original 2-year period, but usually less. Mine is only ~ 30 days beyond my original warranty). You're out of luck if its speaker, microphone, home button, etc. fails on day 91. Also bear in mind that the refurb phone has likely been manually disassembled, parts swapped out, then manually reassembled (unless you're lucky and your refurb unit is someone else's "buyer's remorse" return, but you have no way of knowing). Brand new phones aren't re-exposed like that.
This is going to get very tricky if the next generation of phones are advertised as "waterproof". Refurb units of those models are going to have to be able to maintain the same waterproof integrity after being cracked open, repaired, and reassembled.
She claims that she was not informed that she would receive a refurbished used device in the event of damage. These (below) are the terms of AppleCare and these are the terms she agreed to when she bought the coverage. Nowhere does it say she will explicitly receive a new device. "New or Equivalent to new in performance and reliability" is what Apple is contractually obligated to give her and "New or Equivalent to new in performance and reliability" is what she got.
"If during the Coverage Period, you submit a valid claim by notifying Apple that (i) a defect in materials and workmanship has arisen in the Covered Equipment, or (ii) the capacity of a covered battery to hold an electrical charge is less than eighty percent (80%) of its original specifications, Apple will either (a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product. If Apple exchanges the Covered Equipment, the original product becomes Apple’s property and the replacement product is your property with coverage for the remaining period of the Plan."
In short, she is saying is "I'm suing Apple because I can't read a contract and my attorney is supporting me in this frivolous lawsuit against all sound legal reasoning because, you know, Apple."
There is a very specific legal reason Apple uses the above bold text, there is already case law on this subject. The term Reliability is key to this. All product wear out and die it just a matter of time. If you have a product which is 6 month old and take it in to be replace Apple can not give you a phone which is say a year old or more, unless said phone had its electronics replace so they are new and the case is year old and case can not decrease in reliability. The person would have to prove the product was actually less reliable then what they turned in. Not going to happen.
This came out because Gateway computer use to try and sell return product as new. They had a policy which said as long as less then 10% of the useful life was not used up in the product they could refurb it and sell it as new. They got caught and paid dearly for some bean counters bright idea of save Gateway money.
If you broke it, you're not entitled to a brand new replacement.
If it broke on its own (warranty claim, not accidental damage), then yes, one should be entitled. If your original unit fails toward the end of your AppleCare+ warranty period (within the last 90 days of the 2 year coverage), the refurbished replacement unit is only covered for 90 days (i.e., maximum of 89 days beyond the original 2-year period, but usually less. Mine is only ~ 30 days beyond my original warranty). You're out of luck if its speaker, microphone, home button, etc. fails on day 91. Also bear in mind that the refurb phone has likely been manually disassembled, parts swapped out, then manually reassembled (unless you're lucky and your refurb unit is someone else's "buyer's remorse" return, but you have no way of knowing). Brand new phones aren't re-exposed like that.
This is going to get very tricky if the next generation of phones are advertised as "waterproof". Refurb units of those models are going to have to be able to maintain the same waterproof integrity after being cracked open, repaired, and reassembled.
So you're saying a replacement you get because your purchase failed within the warranty period should reset the clock with a new warranty and not just the remaining warranty on your original purchase? Apple's obligation is to fix the problem, not leave you better off than if you never had a problem. If you have a 21-month old device, an Apple refurbished replacement is a vast improvement — Apple refurb units have no cosmetic wear and new batteries. A refurb that passes a quality standard that it is no more likely to fail than an all-new unit is a logical solution.
Comments
My understanding is that replacement iPhones/iPads are not refurbished and you cannot actually get any refurbished finished goods at an Apple Store.
If if you read the AppleCare quote posted by VisualSeed notice it says "...(a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product..." (Emphasis mine)
I believe "parts" is referring to parts for Macs (and possibly iPhones). As iPads are not repaired in store, you get a replacement product. Apple's language is pretty clear to differentiate between refurbished parts and replacement products.
There is a difference here and I don't think it's in the plaintiff's favor.
- Mac Mini mid-2010. Refurb from Apple.com, back in 2011. I'm typing on it, it's been perfect all this time. (I'm on my second Dell monitor, but that's a different story.)
- Two MacBooks Pro 13", same vintage as the Mac Mini. Same refurb arrangement (and the same internals as the Mac Mini, IIRC). Both are used daily by their original owners.
- iPad 3, another refurb from apple.com. Flawless for the year I owned it.
- iPad Air 2 - the only *new* item I've purchased... also flawless for the 18 months I owned it.
- iPad Pro 12.9" - purchased as open-box, but with full Apple warranty nonetheless. Need I say... flawless.
In short, I have a hard time believing that Apple might have separate "tiers" of refurb: one for warranty replacement, one for retail.
Really one can't tell the difference except for the box the refurb unit came in. Still one receives the standard accessories that a new unit has.
It really is this simple, and as I pointed out earlier, the probabilistic failure rate of a brand new unit is actually higher than the failure rate of a refurbished unit that has survived the infant mortality period. These failure rate probability characteristics are based on decades of real-world data, not marketing mumbo jumbo. Random failures will always occur that seem to defy the expectations established by the statistical data. But as a mentor taught me very early in my career - "random is random," so don't try to assign causality when all of the observed data is well within the constraints of the statistical model. Unless of course there are hammer blow marks, vice jaw imprints, turd remnants, or an unidentifiable liquid dripping from a phone that has been presented as suffering from an inexplicable "random failure" from out of the blue that belies the customer's claim that the phone spends its entire waking life gently lounging on a goose down filled velvet pillow.
But the one you returned was not NEW -- unless it didn't work right out of the box ...
My Mercedes has a 5-year warranty. If I get a dent, Daimler should replace it with a new one ... Why? Because I'm self-entitled, that's why!
if people believe they are getting a refurbished iPad when they get a service replacement then they don't fully understand what they are getting and what refurbished means.
If it broke on its own (warranty claim, not accidental damage), then yes, one should be entitled. If your original unit fails toward the end of your AppleCare+ warranty period (within the last 90 days of the 2 year coverage), the refurbished replacement unit is only covered for 90 days (i.e., maximum of 89 days beyond the original 2-year period, but usually less. Mine is only ~ 30 days beyond my original warranty). You're out of luck if its speaker, microphone, home button, etc. fails on day 91. Also bear in mind that the refurb phone has likely been manually disassembled, parts swapped out, then manually reassembled (unless you're lucky and your refurb unit is someone else's "buyer's remorse" return, but you have no way of knowing). Brand new phones aren't re-exposed like that.
This is going to get very tricky if the next generation of phones are advertised as "waterproof". Refurb units of those models are going to have to be able to maintain the same waterproof integrity after being cracked open, repaired, and reassembled.
I have an iPad 3 and it still has the same functions now as it did when it was new.
There is a very specific legal reason Apple uses the above bold text, there is already case law on this subject. The term Reliability is key to this. All product wear out and die it just a matter of time. If you have a product which is 6 month old and take it in to be replace Apple can not give you a phone which is say a year old or more, unless said phone had its electronics replace so they are new and the case is year old and case can not decrease in reliability. The person would have to prove the product was actually less reliable then what they turned in. Not going to happen.
This came out because Gateway computer use to try and sell return product as new. They had a policy which said as long as less then 10% of the useful life was not used up in the product they could refurb it and sell it as new. They got caught and paid dearly for some bean counters bright idea of save Gateway money.