Dutch court rules that Apple cannot supply ‘refurbished or remanufactured’ iPads as warranty replacements

[handymanshandle]

I think for people who go for extended warranties maybe they get like a longer period of when a new device is issued as a warranty replacement but like for the first year of like a limited warranty it should be a new device but entering year two it's up to the manufacturer if they want to offer a refurbished replacement.

[handymanshandle]

18 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Funny, but I had a 2-3 year old device that started showing a known issue for a product and XFX gave me a brand new 470 because they don't make the 280x anymore.  The problem with your argument is that a design flaw can appear later on in the life.  That's on the maker, so it's only fair that they give a new product due to poor design on their part.

So if my 470 has issues around the time Navi comes out, they'll give me a product line equivalent. Noice. I've heard generally good things about XFX so I was pretty confident in getting a 470 from them

[handymanshandle]

46 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I'm all for refurbs provided they guarantee them just as well. Throwing away every refurb device would be a massive waste (not that Apple is a very waste-friendly company).

I think that using refurbs for warranty replacement is mostly alright. My mom had issues with her 4s, I think it was a moderately common issue, the vibration motor failed and they gave her a refurbished 4s and it worked fine up to the day she switched to a Galaxy S6. I should add, it wasn't like it died as we got the S6s. It just became a sort of relic in some ways.

[alexyy]

On 26/04/2017 at 8:45 PM, djdwosk97 said:

A replacement device for a four month old device can be a refurbished device imo. You're no longer giving in a new product, so why should you get a new product as a replacement?

Because the original device broke and in a way that you actually get a replacement eg Apples fault of course they should pay for the mistake. 

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 hours ago, alexyy said:

Because the original device broke and in a way that you actually get a replacement eg Apples fault of course they should pay for the mistake. 

In a way, it can be caused partially (or fully) by the user as well...I mean if it was working fine for a couple of months before the fault started to happen, why couldn't it have been due to the user? 

[alexyy]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

In a way, it can be caused partially (or fully) by the user as well...I mean if it was working fine for a couple of months before the fault started to happen, why couldn't it have been due to the user? 

So you're saying Apple's phones are 100% bomb proof no way they can break on their own? okay buddy.

[79wjd]

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Funny, but I had a 2-3 year old device that started showing a known issue for a product and XFX gave me a brand new 470 because they don't make the 280x anymore.  The problem with your argument is that a design flaw can appear later on in the life.  That's on the maker, so it's only fair that they give a new product due to poor design on their part.

That's different though, they didn't have a 280x to give you, otherwise they would have given you a 280x. If you had the three year warranty from Apple on an iPhone 5s and Apple somehow ran out of iPhone 5s's, then they'd give you some newer version. 

3 hours ago, alexyy said:

Because the original device broke and in a way that you actually get a replacement eg Apples fault of course they should pay for the mistake. 

And they do by giving you a replacement. But that doesn't entitle you to a brand new device to replace your months-years old device. 

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, alexyy said:

So you're saying Apple's phones are 100% bomb proof no way they can break on their own? okay buddy.

Well no, but what I'm saying is its possible to create a fault by dropping your device or something similar that's caused by the user. 

 

An example of this is me dropping my old iPhone 5 probably about 100 times (not an exaggeration) and the thing that gave up first wasn't the screen but instead was the loudspeaker which started to "short circuit" slightly and as its internal "damage" and not external damage, you would presume it was caused by apple but ya know, dropping it so many times probably didn't help. 

Another example is with my laptop, the ribbon for the keyboard (some keys stopped always properly responding) and the cable for the battery (you could turn it on but would no longer show capacity left) both partially disconnected due to it being shaken around so much in my bag (as it was 12KG heavy...yeah, not easy to be gentle with it ).

 

Did both examples involve possibly bad design of connectors/manufacturing related issues? Yep but would the "faults" have happened had they been treated better? a lot lot lot less likely  so...ya know  

 

On a side note, for some reason, I struggle to not drop my phone although I've never smashed a phone's screen before...ah well...

[mikeeginger]

If it's under warranty you should get a new Product 

End of Story 

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, mikeeginger said:

If it's under warranty you should get a new Product 

End of Story 

Most companies don't give no products back as replacements, and why should they, they're not replacing a new product. 

 

Both my Crucial M4 and WD Passport warranty replacements were refurbished. 

[79wjd]

23 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The point is that they gave me a new boxed 470, unopened.  It's not different.  Apple is just cheap.  If they mess up then they should give you a new product if you are under warranty.  

Most companies give used products for warranty replacements, sure it happens that you can get a new product, but that's definitely not the norm. I can't think of a single warranty replacement where I've received a brand new device.

[haloharry97]

WD do this, they only give you a refurbished model, they do not give you a new one

[Sauron]

I personally wouldn't care that much if the refurbished product was indistinguishable from a new one, but apple certainly doesn't risk bankruptcy by providing a new replacement. At the same time, given apple's policy on repair and reuse these devices will likely be shredded and discarded, increasing pollution - so yeah.

[Carclis]

On 2017-4-27 at 5:15 AM, djdwosk97 said:

A replacement device for a four month old device can be a refurbished device imo. You're no longer giving in a new product, so why should you get a new product as a replacement?

That's a pretty poor way to look at it. I have experienced what poor condition refurbished products are like and wouldn't wish it upon anyone. My PS3 kicked the bucket a couple of years outside the warranty and that being the case I had to fork out money to get it repaired. The model i received in return was in fairly poor condition with a lot more cosmetic wear than mine did and suffered from the now renowned YLOD after just under a month. So I had to have that one replaced, and guess what happened to the next one I got just over a month later...It was only after three dead units that Sony finally offered me a new product (albeit an inferior one) and the whole process made me wish I had just bought a new one in the first place with each replacement taking roughly a month between being sent and the new unit arriving.

 

If you purchased a product and it failed through no fault of your own you should be entitled to a new product. After all, what you PAID for is out of commission for 2-6 weeks.

[porina]

Wasn't there also a news article somewhere that Apple are actively ordering recycling companies they work with to destroy old Apple products? No salvaging of parts for reuse.

 

I think a refurb of a suitable quality is acceptable for warranty, after an initial no questions asked period where you get new replacement, say a month or so. What do I mean of a suitable quality? I'd probably require that main user interface parts are replaced with new, as are wear and tear items. So external parts should be replaced for "as new" condition. This would then be indistinguishable from an actual new product in any practical way.

 

I've not had to deal much with warranty as often it isn't worth it as they tend to happen towards end of product life. My old Philips monitor was more interesting. The backlight failed in just under 18 months of a 3 yr warranty. They swapped it with a refurb and the same happened again after another 18 months, but fortunately just inside existing warranty. This time they didn't have any units left and repaired my monitor at no cost. I didn't keep it another 18 months to find out if that was going to happen again.

[ashypanda]

my standing on this is, either fix the owners device or give them a new one, and send the old device for recycling, and if there is no new devices offer the newer version, if graphics card manufacturers can do it, apple and other phone makers certainly can as well.

[crystal6tak]

What's wrong with re-manufactured? Isn't that what most company already do on brand new products?

 

You're telling me companies DON'T salvage reusable parts from defective/broken products (e.g. camera modules, cpu, screws) and use them in producing new products?

 

I'll actually be disappointed if they don't do that. Kinda messed up to throw away tons and tons of perfectly usable components. 

[Notional]

This is similar (well identical) to a court case in Denmark, that ruled the exact same thing back in december:

 

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/12/09/dutch-new-vs-refurbished-iphone-lawsuit/

 

Apple accepted the outcome in the end.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Carclis said:

That's a pretty poor way to look at it. I have experienced what poor condition refurbished products are like and wouldn't wish it upon anyone. My PS3 kicked the bucket a couple of years outside the warranty and that being the case I had to fork out money to get it repaired. The model i received in return was in fairly poor condition with a lot more cosmetic wear than mine did and suffered from the now renowned YLOD after just under a month. So I had to have that one replaced, and guess what happened to the next one I got just over a month later...It was only after three dead units that Sony finally offered me a new product (albeit an inferior one) and the whole process made me wish I had just bought a new one in the first place with each replacement taking roughly a month between being sent and the new unit arriving.

 

If you purchased a product and it failed through no fault of your own you should be entitled to a new product. After all, what you PAID for is out of commission for 2-6 weeks.

An old device isn't inherently more likely to break, especially if they do a good job validating the hardware. Again, you're not turning in a new product so no, you're not entitled to a new product. 

 

Also there is no wait time in exchanging an iPhone. 

 

Besides, I didn't pay for ANY iPhone, I paid for MY iPhone. So if my iPhone breaks then a new replacement isn't satisfactory either, I should get my money back even if it's 11 months and 29 days post purchase. But of course, that's ridiculous. This entitlement nonsense needs to end.

49 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Switch to XFX then.  If the maker messed up then you're covered by false advertising laws too.  Which should require them to give you a new product because the one they gave you was faulty or became faulty due to a production flaw.  Giving you a "fixed" RMAed one is them being cheap, and conforming to that ideology is still being cheap.  They do it to save money on their part.  Which is cheap and unfair practice.

Of course they do it to save money, but there's also nothing wrong with them doing it. And if you really want new replacements for everything then only but from companies that do that, just know you're limited to a very select few companies.

[79wjd]

39 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Them saving money doesn't make it right.  It's not entitlement when they screwed up which is now false advertising.  They advertised a working product and sent you a broken product or a product that was going to fail then offered you a warranty to replace it.  So, they should give you a new one or you should have the right to sue.  In this case, they lost just for that.

That's not false advertising..... Stuff breaks, and when it does they're required to give you a replacement, which is exactly what they do. 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Of lesser value and it is.  They promised a long working product.  They didn't deliver.  That's why warranties exist in the first place to avoid lawsuits, and being cheap about it leads to lawsuits like this.

Your six month old phone isn't worth the same amount as a brand new phone. They promised a long working product that they will replace if it has a problem, they promised nothing more. No socialistic entitlement leads to lawsuits like this. 

 

Terms of warranty directly from Apple:

If during the Warranty Period you submit a claim to Apple or an AASP in accordance with this warranty, Apple will, at its option:

(i) repair the Apple Product using new or previously used parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability,

(ii) replace the Apple Product with the same model (or with your consent a product that has similar functionality) formed from new and/or previously used parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or 

(iii) exchange the Apple Product for a refund of your purchase price.

https://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/products/denmark-universal-warranty.html

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Apple doesn't get to change laws of a country.  It's not the consumer's fault that Apple made a faulty product, it's Apple's fault rather you like it or not.

Iirc from when this story first started months ago, Dutch consumer protection laws specifically says "new equivalent", which as far as I'm concerned factory refurbished satisfies -- hence the discussion introduced in the original post; just because a court decided something doesn't make it right.

 

Defects happen, that's why warranties exist. When major problems happen (like the gpu on Macs from 2011 dying), that's when things like this should come up.

[MadyTehWolfie]

On 4/26/2017 at 3:45 PM, djdwosk97 said:

A replacement device for a four month old device can be a refurbished device imo. You're no longer giving in a new product, so why should you get a new product as a replacement?

I agree that's why EVGA has a policy that they will only send you a brand new GPU as a replacement within the first 30 days of owning it.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Okay, so you're fine with a corporation making something faulty and all you get in return is a returned broken product that they fixed to a degree? K.  

 

I'd rather get back what I paid for, a new product that was guaranteed to work,  as that's a tad more logical since I'm not the one at fault, the corporation is.  It's not my fault the company doesn't have perfect quality checking.

If there is a defect across the product line, then a new replacement will also have that same defect unless that defect has been accepted and accounted for -- in which case, the defect would also be fixed in the replacement product. 

 

Again, I paid for MY iPhone, not any iPhone -- just specifically the one I bought. So I should be entitled to a full refund not a warranty replacement -- even if it is a new replacement. 

5 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

I agree that's why EVGA has a policy that they will only send you a brand new GPU as a replacement within the first 30 days of owning it.

However it's handled, as long as the warranty agreement doesn't specifically say new, then a refurbished device is fine. And that's why I don't have a problem with Apple using refurbished devices -- because there warranty clearly states new equivalent (which is also what Dutch consumer law says iirc -- I'll pull up the actual law when I get home).

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, see they fix them to work to a degree because they only fixed the issue that was claimed in the RMA.  

 

No, the seller themselves won't give you a refund after the first month.  

 

Apple, or any corporation would know the quality and flaws of devices unless they're being extra cheap.  

 

XFX, unlike cheap Apple, will give you a brand new boxed product because that's the right thing to do.  Companies who don't do that are just being cheap to benefit themselves, not you.  I'm not going to change my mind on that, and the Dutch court also agrees with me.  You can claim it's not right, but it's now the law there and the moral of good companies.

According to who? According to Apple's warranty agreement, replacements are "formed from new and/or previously used parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability". To me that means they validate the device and any components in it -- unless you would like to prove otherwise. 

 

I'm not saying the seller should give me a refund, I'm saying Apple should. I don't want a brand new replacement, I want the EXACT device I bought or my money, even if it's just 1 day shy of owning the device for the full warranty period. This is why the law is ridiculous, you're not turning it a brand new device -- you're turning in a months old device, and therefore shouldn't be eligible for a full refund nor should it be required to be replaced with a brand new device. 

 

They might know about a defect (months later), but that doesn't mean they will accept that the defect exists -- it wasn't until recently that Intel acknowledged the flaw with the Atom C2550d4i boards, meanwhile they kept selling the boards for years with the defect. 

 

No shit they're doing it for their benefit and not mine. But that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing wrong with a refurbished device to replace an old/used device, and you know what, if you're not okay with a refurbished replacement, then don't buy the product -- because it is clearly stated in the warranty agreement that they will give you a new equivalent device.