Apple admits in open court to reuse old parts from damaged phones, in new ones

[michaelocarroll007]

2 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

To me personally, I could care less. To an average consumer, this could make them flip shit. Along as it had no visual imperfections on the outside, go for it.

 If  it was within a month or less of me getting the phone i would want a new one But over the course of a 2 year warranty i think its fair to be a Like new refurb 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'd have to disagree about the form over function part. A customizable bar adds a lot more functionality than a function row. 

Not really: AFAIK that bar doesn't has haptic feedback so there's no physical feedback. Having a nice display should be secondary to having physical feedback on the key. Many people use the function keys so rarely that for the kinds of customers Apple markets to it truly doesn't matters, I can give you that.

 

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, DozerKitty said:

it gets a 2-year warranty, no matter what the company claims.

There's usually a loophole to it, like in the UK, something is supposed to last 5-6 years and if it breaks within the 6 years of owning it, the retailer/manufacturer has to do something about it but the issue with this law (while saving manufacturers from unfair claims but also preventing consumers from fair claims) is after 6 months of purchase, you have to prove that it's a manufacturing error/part failure rather than a failure caused by the buyer. 

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Volbet said:

Yeah, I read that and I'm a bit torn on the case. 

The Danish law on the sales of goods doesn't specifically say "new product of equal value". §78 2. says the consumer has the right to (in the event of a broken item)

(English translation: Deliverance of another item that is in accordance with the purchase agremment (redelivery)). Source.

 

Now, one could argue that the agreement between David and Apple is for a phone, not specifically a 100% new phone.

If the refurbished phone is completly undisguisable from a new phone then Apple might have a case. 

David's phone was also used at the time of replacement, which could lead to a justification of giving him a used phone. 

 

I would tend agree with Consumer Ombudsmanden in this case, since the judicial president does point in the direction that the redelivered item has to be of the same value as the replaced item, but that's not written in stone. 

The court could very well favour Apple's case, but the opinion of the various Ombudsmænd tend to be valued a lot by the courts.  

 

They have to give him a replacement that is identical in value to what he originally bought. Instead they replaced it with a mix & match refurb-"new" phone without original packaging, while concealing the fact that it wasn't factory new and thus had much lower resale value.

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

1) good for them, that's called reusing and that is better than recycling or disposing.

 

2) if it works, why the hell are you complaining... it's not like it's worse because it doesn't have new parts.

 

3) this guy should stop buying apple products if he disagrees with their reuse methods.

If Apple doesn't want to abide by European law they can stop selling their products here.

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

 

Ridiculously overpriced items that are relatively competitive with the rest of the market*. 

 

Also, it's not like most companies give refurbished products as RMAs. Oh wait...that's exactly how most companies handle RMAs.

They don't, here, because it's illegal.

42 minutes ago, QBtech said:

 

 

So basically this is the case of  "Can companies use recycled materials to produce goods" . Good job Denmark, way to care about the environment. In a few years some compounds will all have to be recycled cuz we sucked the earth dry of them, and no one will be able to sell crap to Denmark due to this.

 

What was the original verdict in the case?

No it isn't. They can sell recycled and refurbished goods just fine, they just don't do that because they know they'll get less money for them. Instead they deceive customers by replacing phones that were bought new with these fake-new models.

26 minutes ago, QBtech said:

It's a hard case to start with. Equal value to what? The launching price, current price or current value if it worked?

 

Plus a new phone with used parts > refurb in my book

How did this person even find out it contained some used parts?  

 

smells like someone who was already looking for a fight

Equal to what it was worth when it was bought. The simplest measure is just a full refund, but often the retailer and manufacturer can save money with repairs etc. and they have a right to go that way.

 

New phone > "new" phone with recycled parts > refurb, that's basically what the case is about.

 

The fact that the phone contained used parts was revealed later in the process, as Apple had illegally concealed this. This customer wasn't looking for a fight, this is more of a test case for the many other cases that Apple has lost at the Danish consumer ombudsman.

[79wjd]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Not really: AFAIK that bar doesn't has haptic feedback so there's no physical feedback. Having a nice display should be secondary to having physical feedback on the key. Many people use the function keys so rarely that for the kinds of customers Apple markets to it truly doesn't matters, I can give you that.

 

Sure you lose haptic feedback, but I don't think most people touch-type the function row anyway. And even if you do touch type the function row, the added functionality/endless possibilities is far more useful than what f1-f12 offers. 

 

But I think we're digressing from the topic a bit. 

[DozerKitty]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

There's usually a loophole to it, like in the UK, something is supposed to last 5-6 years and if it breaks within the 6 years of owning it, the retailer/manufacturer has to do something about it but the issue with this law (while saving manufacturers from unfair claims but also preventing consumers from fair claims) is after 6 months of purchase, you have to prove that it's a manufacturing error/part failure rather than a failure caused by the buyer. 

 

It's the same here. The first 6 months is pure warranty, where it's up to the manufacturer to prove the fault wasn't theirs. The next 18 months it's reversed, with the burden of evidence being on the customer, to prove it wasn't his fault the product failed. Beyond 2 years, there's nothing to be done. If your product fails after 2 years a 1 day, you're screwed no matter what.

[Mr.Meerkat]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Not really: AFAIK that bar doesn't has haptic feedback so there's no physical feedback. Having a nice display should be secondary to having physical feedback on the key. Many people use the function keys so rarely that for the kinds of customers Apple markets to it truly doesn't matters, I can give you that.

The only time I've ever used my function keys is for changing brightness and volume, that's it  

 

Just now, DozerKitty said:

It's the same here. The first 6 months is pure warranty, where it's up to the manufacturer to prove the fault wasn't theirs. The next 18 months it's reversed, with the burden of evidence being on the customer, to prove it wasn't his fault the product failed. Beyond 2 years, there's nothing to be done. If your product fails after 2 years a 1 day, you're screwed no matter what.

That's the thing, we also have this rule where it's actually more down to how long the consumer expected the product to last so if it was something that you expected to last 10 years and fails after 8, it can be honored...but they can see how it can be abused so...ermmm...

[DozerKitty]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

The only time I've ever used my function keys is for changing brightness and volume, that's it  

 

That's the thing, we also have this rule where it's actually more down to how long the consumer expected the product to last so if it was something that you expected to last 10 years and fails after 8, it can be honored...but they can see how it can be abused so...ermmm...

 

We Danes like to have everything cut into black or white cubes The warranty law says 2 years, so it's 2 years, end of discussion  

[suicidalfranco]

oh boi, we might get another 

 

[Sakkura]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

oh boi, we might get another 

Except this time it's going to be a judge, and using the law instead of a Petanque ball.

 

All we need now is a Judge Dredd Halloween outfit.

[QBtech]

9 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

They have to give him a replacement that is identical in value to what he originally bought. Instead they replaced it with a mix & match refurb-"new" phone without original packaging, while concealing the fact that it wasn't factory new and thus had much lower resale value.

 

New phone > "new" phone with recycled parts > refurb, that's basically what the case is about.

 

The fact that the phone contained used parts was revealed later in the process, as Apple had illegally concealed this. This customer wasn't looking for a fight, this is more of a test case for the many other cases that Apple has lost at the Danish consumer ombudsman.

That sounds more like a usual refurb that Apple claimed to be fresh of the assembly line than a full recycle program.

 

Recycling would be completely disassembling the phone to it's most basic parts, testing them and reintroducing them to the general assembly line. Which would make the phone unrecognisable from "new" ones and higher the individual product cost while lowering overall costs. (AS in normal =material cost + manufacturing, recycle= material cost + disassembly + manufacturing)

[QBtech]

--repost--

Edited October 28, 2016 by QBtech

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Except this time it's going to be a judge, and using the law instead of a Petanque ball.

 

All we need now is a Judge Dredd Halloween outfit.

And as a great man once said, whilst holding a petanque ball in his right hand:

"ta gueule"

 

not to you, just like the way he said it in the vid

[dtaflorida]

I'd only be upset with a refurb device if it was within the return date, ie better to just return the device flat out and buy it again. Beyond that refurb is perfectly acceptable. 

 

Also, buying close to the release date ensures early issues get replaced with new as they don't have huge stock of returned and refurbed items.

[Sakkura]

Just now, QBtech said:

That sounds more like a usual refurb that Apple claimed to be fresh of the assembly line than a full recycle program.

 

Recycling would be completely disassembling the phone to it's most basic parts, testing them and reintroducing them to the general assembly line. Which would make the phone unrecognisable from "new" ones and higher the individual product cost while lowering overall costs. (AS in normal =material cost + manufacturing, recycle= material cost + disassembly + manufacturing)

According to this article (Danish), it's what Apple calls a remanufactured phone, and it's pieced together from used parts from other phones.

 

Apple doesn't sell those remanufactured phones as new at full retail price, proving that they are well aware that it's worth less than an actually new product.

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, dtaflorida said:

I'd only be upset with a refurb device if it was within the return date, ie better to just return the device flat out and buy it again. Beyond that refurb is perfectly acceptable. 

 

Also, buying close to the release date ensures early issues get replaced with new as they don't have huge stock of returned and refurbed items.

Well... it's perfectly illegal in Denmark, and AFAIK in the entire EU. The Danish bill is mostly just implementing EU directives, after all.

[DozerKitty]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Well... it's perfectly illegal in Denmark, and AFAIK in the entire EU. The Danish bill is mostly just implementing EU directives, after all.

If I'm not mistaken, we had our law long before any EU directives. 

[Sakkura]

Just now, DozerKitty said:

If I'm not mistaken, we had our law long before any EU directives. 

Yeah, but it's been substantially altered in implementation of the EU directives (also some of the content of the directives matches what was already in our pre-existing legislation).

[QBtech]

12 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

According to this article (Danish), it's what Apple calls a remanufactured phone, and it's pieced together from used parts from other phones.

 

Apple doesn't sell those remanufactured phones as new at full retail price, proving that they are well aware that it's worth less than an actually new product.

But that is just a fancy different name for what is basically a refurb

[Sakkura]

Another thing worth noting here is that the board that originally decided the case in his favor in 2013 did so unanimously. The board is made up of 2 representatives of consumer rights organizations, 2 industry representatives, and a judge.

 

So in contentious cases you usually have 2 votes for the complainant, 2 votes against, and then the impartial judge has the deciding vote.

 

But in this case, the industry representatives voted in favor of the complainant. That usually indicates it's a very clear-cut case.

 

Just now, QBtech said:

But that is just a fancy different name for what is basically a refurb

 

It seems Apple has separate categories, but I'd rather let them explain the exact difference between refurbished and remanufactured.

[QBtech]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It seems Apple has separate categories, but I'd rather let them explain the exact difference between refurbished and remanufactured.

Refurbished = 1 phone fixed to be as new

Remanufactured = 1000s of phones taken completely apart to make 100s of 'new' phones

 

Still I consider both refurbs

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

They have to give him a replacement that is identical in value to what he originally bought. Instead they replaced it with a mix & match refurb-"new" phone without original packaging, while concealing the fact that it wasn't factory new and thus had much lower resale value.

Not necessarily. The laws don't state at what point in the products life the value is determined and the court president is a bit iffy on the point.

However, if we look at insurrance cases, there has been a tendency to determin the value at time the merchandise becomes damaged.

 

This is not an absolute way of doing it, but it would be intersting to see how Apple will argue their case. 

[christianled59]

I know there's a lot of apple hate on these forums, but from what I gather, I don't honestly see anything wrong with this. Unless they're selling you an entirely refurbished phone for new, all they're doing is saving money. I can guarantee you their QA makes sure the parts are flawless before selling. 

[Sakkura]

11 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Not necessarily. The laws don't state at what point in the products life the value is determined and the court president is a bit iffy on the point.

However, if we look at insurrance cases, there has been a tendency to determin the value at time the merchandise becomes damaged.

 

This is not an absolute way of doing it, but it would be intersting to see how Apple will argue their case. 

Yes it does. It has to place the buyer in an identical position to the time he bought the product. That's also why the other option, of a refund, is by default of the total purchase price. The precedent here is clear.

 

And again, even industry representatives sided against Apple here.

 

1 minute ago, christianled59 said:

I know there's a lot of apple hate on these forums, but from what I gather, I don't honestly see anything wrong with this. Unless they're selling you an entirely refurbished phone for new, all they're doing is saving money. I can guarantee you their QA makes sure the parts are flawless before selling. 

If a part has been used before, it will on average have a shorter remaining lifespan than a factory-new part.

 

And they can't just break the law to save money.

 

Furthermore, even Apple themselves acknowledge that these refurbished or remanufactured phones are not worth as much as factory-new ones.

[Volbet]

29 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Yes it does. It has to place the buyer in an identical position to the time he bought the product. That's also why the other option, of a refund, is by default of the total purchase price. The precedent here is clear.

 

And again, even industry representatives sided against Apple here.

Do you have case numbers for that? Becuase the law doesn't at any point mention value when it comes to damaged goods, and the cases I've been able to find haven't been clear on this subject.

As already stated, the law only say the refunded ware has to be in accordance with sales agreement, which it could be argued that a refurbished phone is.

Also, a refund and a redelivery are two very different things, atleast by the letter of the law and way the law is handled in practice. 

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you nor the alleged industry representatives. 

My only interst is in the outcome of the case. It will set a president in an area that I still consider to be murky. 

I'm really just trying to consider Apple's side, since they are on the defensive coming into this.