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

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

There is everything wrong with sending out refurbs.  Because they don't fix every possible issue they only fix the issue listed in the RMA claim form.  The same exact device?  No, they're more likely going to send you another guy's broken device that was fixed to a degree/the issue they claimed was fix meaning they don't check for other issues because they're cheap.  

 

That's most likely part of why the Dutch court ruled in favor of the consumer over the cheap corporation  You expect a company benefitting themselves and being cheap to give you a validated device? That's cute!  No, they're only going to fix a claimed issue, and nothing more.  Your warranty is now over, and once more issues arise have fun dishing out more.  See, that's how corporations work.  It's what benefits them, not you.

Again, according to who? How do you know Apple doesn't validate all the hardware/components first? 

 

Considering 100% of successful companies make decisions that benefit themselves, yes. 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's common sense since they're already being cheap.  And, who sets up the validation?  Oh, right..them!

It's not common sense though, and should they just throw out any devices they accept for warranty replacements, that sounds like a terrible idea from every standpoint? The number of used/refurbished sales will never be high enough to account for all the devices they accept under warranties. 

 

If you don't trust their validation techniques in the first place, then again, you shouldn't be buying their products. 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

I don't buy Apple products because I have no use for them.  And, I don't trust Apple, to begin with, never have.  But if XFX, a company with a smaller budget, can send me a new GPU, boxed never used, then why can't others like EVGA?  Why can't Apple do this with their products if I'm still in warranty?  Oh, that's right it only benefits them because they're cheap. However, with this new law, they're no longer allowed to be cheap about it.  

 

Morality = the reason. Let's leave it at that.

XFX also used to offer lifetime warranties -- the underdog has to have a better public face. Others can, but they have determined that their validation techniques are good enough to be able to send out refurbished replacements without causing themselves a giant headache in further warranty claims, and being bigger means they have the marketing and exposure to not have to beg for customers. 

 

No, socialistic entitlement=the reason. 

[samuel]

As a manufacturer, why should I realease a good quality product, when I can focus on repairing my shit product on and on?

[Carclis]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

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.

Wear and tear is a thing and causes older devices to become more likely to fail. That's exactly why I had the experience I did and why the YLOD PS3 issue only started to become prominent years after the launch. It's the same with any electronic device and some more than others. Validating the hardware would make sense but at the end of the day it probably costs them more than the hardware is worth in the case of an Iphone which would make me inclined to believe that they just don't do it.

 

Just because there is no wait time in exchanging an iphone (not the case where I live) does not mean that it's fine for them to fail or that it's not an inconvenience to the user. The whole point of a warranty is to serve as a promise to the consumer that the hardware is guaranteed to work for said period of time, else it get's replaced with the same or better product or a full refund is offered. For a company as notorious for being unwilling to acknowledge widespread hardware issues as Apple is I would expect that most people demand a new product.

[79wjd]

Just now, Carclis said:

Wear and tear is a thing and causes older devices to become more likely to fail. That's exactly why I had the experience I did and why the YLOD PS3 issue only started to become prominent years after the launch. It's the same with any electronic device and some more than others.

 

Validating the hardware would make sense but at the end of the day it probably costs them more than the hardware is worth in the case of an Iphone which would make me inclined to believe that they just don't do it.

 

Just because there is no wait time in exchanging an iphone (not the case where I live) does not mean that it's fine for them to fail or that it's not an inconvenience to the user. The whole point of a warranty is to serve as a promise to the consumer that the hardware is guaranteed to work for said period of time, else it get's replaced with the same or better product or a full refund is offered. For a company as notorious for being unwilling to acknowledge widespread hardware issues as Apple is I would expect that most people demand a new product.

An older device has also been run through the paces -- early failures also account for a significant number of total failures. 

 

Their warranty agreement implies they ensure the quality of any refurbished components -- you can choose to believe that or not, but until proven otherwise, they validate the components/devices.

 

If you bothered to read the warranty agreement that you agree to when purchasing the product, you would see that they offer a new equivalent for any warranty claims. Nowhere do they promise a new device or a refund because, frankly, that's ridiculous -- you're not giving in a new product, so why should you be given a new product as a replacement. 

[Tomsen]

Why should I as a costumer accept a replacement product of less value? How is that fair?

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Why should I as a costumer accept a replacement product of less value? How is that fair?

Because it's what you agreed to when you purchased the product (and the device you're turning in is no longer new either).

[Dackzy]

It is common practice for repair shops to use parts from broken tech they have laying around, but I do think that when you get a replacement unit that it should be brand new, both because that is what the consumer expects but also because you never know if a given part in a refurbished unit is worn down to the point just before it showing flaws. So I think this ruling is 100% fair

 

If they can't give a customer a new product or repair their product then they should get their money back no questions asked. That is my stance on this

[Tomsen]

23 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Because it's what you agreed to when you purchased the product (and the device you're turning in is no longer new either).

Thats the commercial guarantee which you can invoke. It is the legal guarantee that is being invoked. So that agreement means nothing to our subject if I am reading this correctly.

 

Also, you not turning in a new device is not an argument at all. If Apple had done their job in the first place there would have been no reason to replace it. This is some very faulty logic to try to impose.

[BingoFishy]

23 hours ago, Jahramika said:

So all the wacko left wingers are against recycling. Can not win in a messed up world.  

1) Nobody said anything about their political preferences. How would you know if they're right or left wing?

2) Keep politics out of this

3) Most people are fine with recycling and getting refurbished units as long as they're as good as new ones.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Thats the commercial guarantee which you can invoke. It is the legal guarantee that is being invoked. So that agreement means nothing to our subject if I am reading this correctly.

 

Also, you not turning in a new device is not an argument at all. If Apple had done their job in the first place there would have been no reason to replace it. This is some very faulty logic to try to impose.

I don't see why the agreement is irrelevant. As far as I understand, Dutch consumer law says 'new equivalent' and Apple's warranty agreement states that you will get a replacement phone that is using parts that are comparable in "performance and reliability".

 

Except that it is accepted that defects happen, and in those cases you have a reasonable expectation for an equivalent replacement. I don't see how a brand new device is equivalent to an 11 month old device. There is a reason why very few companies offer brand new replacement devices on warranty claims -- the refurbished devices perform reliably and so there is no reason to waste money or resources by throwing old/warrantied phones in the garbage.

[Tomsen]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I don't see why the agreement is irrelevant. As far as I understand, Dutch consumer law says 'new equivalent' and Apple's warranty agreement states that you will get a replacement phone that is using parts that are comparable in "performance and reliability".

 

Except that it is accepted that defects happen, and in those cases you have a reasonable expectation for an equivalent replacement. I don't see how a brand new device is equivalent to an 11 month old device. There is a reason why very few companies offer brand new replacement devices on warranty claims -- the refurbished devices perform reliably and so there is no reason to waste money or resources by throwing old/warrantied phones in the garbage.

The agreement is irrelevant because that isn't been invoked, but instead the EU laws are. You do realize there might be a difference between what when the Dutch consumer law says "new equivalent" and when Apple says "performance and reliability is comparable", right? Let me ask you this: If Apple was so damn sure on this, why do they limit them for warranty replacement? Why not just mix them with the new hardware and sell them in stores as "new" products? I mean, they are after all comparable in performance and reliability! Lets not ask any question as to how they estimated that!

 

Yes, it is accepted that defects happens, but it is also accepted (by law) the manufacturer/seller will cover for that and not the consumer. Yes, people are expecting an equivalent replacement to the device they bought (notice past tense), not the device they are turning in, that is faulty for fuck sakes.

 

You are outright wrong that most don't replace them with new devices. Most do! One reason: Simplicity.

You got a consumer who want to replace a device, the consumers goes to the shop, and gets a new one in an instant.

 

If they want, they can sell the refurbished devices for less than the original. That is what do.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

The agreement is irrelevant because that isn't been invoked, but instead the EU laws are. You do realize there might be a difference between what when the Dutch consumer law says "new equivalent" and when Apple says "performance and reliability is comparable", right? Let me ask you this: If Apple was so damn sure on this, why do they limit them for warranty replacement? Why not just mix them with the new hardware and sell them in stores as "new" products? I mean, they are after all comparable in performance and reliability! Lets not ask any question as to how they estimated that!

 

Yes, it is accepted that defects happens, but it is also accepted (by law) the manufacturer/seller will cover for that and not the consumer. Yes, people are expecting an equivalent replacement to the device they bought (notice past tense), not the device they are turning in, that is faulty for fuck sakes.

 

You are outright wrong that most don't replace them with new devices. Most do! One reason: Simplicity.

You got a consumer who want to replace a device, the consumers goes to the shop, and gets a new one in an instant.

 

If they want, they can sell the refurbished devices for less than the original. That is what do.

Because if you're buying a new product you have an expectation that it is made from all new components. I didn't have that same expectation about a warranty replacement before I read the agreement, and now that I've read the agreement I have even less of an expectation for that. 

 

Of course it comes down to what 'new equivalent' means, but imo Apple's warranty agreement satisfies new equivalent. 

 

Most companies definitely don't. I can think of several warranty claims that I've made where I didn't get a new product, several where I'm not sure, but I can't think of a single one where I did. I've made claims with EVGA, WD, Crucial, Logitech, HTC, and Sony and didn't receive a new replacement. I've made claims with Dell and G.Skill and I'm not sure whether it was new or refurbished. Very few shops will just replace the device for you, you almost always have to go through the manufacturer unless you paid for the shops warranty. 

 

They do sell refurbished devices for less than the cost of a new one, but the volume isn't there to satisfy all the phones that are available and so the remainder would end up in the trash. 

[Tomsen]

14 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Because if you're buying a new product you have an expectation that it is made from all new components. I didn't have that same expectation about a warranty replacement before I read the agreement, and now that I've read the agreement I have even less of an expectation for that. 

 

Of course it comes down to what 'new equivalent' means, but imo Apple's warranty agreement satisfies new equivalent. 

 

Most companies definitely don't. I can think of several warranty claims that I've made where I didn't get a new product, several where I'm not sure, but I can't think of a single one where I did. I've made claims with EVGA, WD, Crucial, Logitech, HTC, and Sony and didn't receive a new replacement. I've made claims with Dell and G.Skill and I'm not sure whether it was new or refurbished. 

 

They do sell refurbished devices for less than the cost of a new one, but the volume isn't there to satisfy all the phones that are available and so the remainder would end up in the trash. 

Expecting and requiring isn't the same thing. The thing you still don't understand is that their warranty isn't (and wasn't in court) recognized. Warranty (also know as commercial guarantee) is something that a company can offer as an extra to the legal guarantee we have in EU. But it always has to be for the benefit of the customer, which it isn't in this case.

 

New equivalent means that if you bought a new iphone, you will get a new iphone as replacement. If you bought a refurbished/remanufactured iphone, you will get a refurbished/remanufactured iphone as replacement. At least according to the court.

 

Most companies definitely do, it simply isn't worth the cost doing so for a lot of products. If repairing it cost more than the device itself, you don't find a company doing it. It might possible for some companies that are selling devices above a couple hundred bucks.

I mean, I can also go through all the times where I simply walked into the store where I bought my device and walked out with an entirely new one. Maybe I'm just better at getting my replacement? I don't normally contact the manufacturer.

 

Also aren't you from the US? Then you don't get the same legal guarantees.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

New equivalent means that if you bought a new iphone, you will get a new iphone as replacement. If you bought a refurbished/remanufactured iphone, you will get a refurbished/remanufactured iphone as replacement. At least according to the court.

 

Most companies definitely do, it simply isn't worth the cost doing so for a lot of products. If repairing it cost more than the device itself, you don't find a company doing it. It might possible for some companies that are selling devices above a couple hundred bucks.

I mean, I can also go through all the times where I simply walked into the store where I bought my device and walked out with an entirely new one. Maybe I'm just better at getting my replacement? I don't normally contact the manufacturer.

 

Also aren't you from the US? Then you don't get the same legal guarantees.

No it does not. New equivalent means exactly what it says -- something that is equivalent to new. That does not mean it has to be new. Just because a court rules something doesn't mean it's right, and the fact that an EU court ruled the way it did doesn't surprise me since it basically sucks to be a company in the EU. 

 

Again, you're dealing with the store, NOT the warranty. I can buy something at Bed and Bath and then return it a year later for a full refund or just say I don't like it and I want it in a different color. The product then gets sent back to the manufacturer because of an agreement between the store and the manufacturer. That has nothing to do with warranty replacements. 

 

I am, and I'm thrilled that we don't have the same bullshit laws you have over in the EU. I love not feeling entitled to the world, and that I actually have to work if I want something better.

 

And with that, I'm done because this is clearly not going anywhere.

[Tomsen]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

No it does not. New equivalent means exactly what it says -- something that is equivalent to new. That does not mean it has to be new. Just because a court rules something doesn't mean it's right, and the fact that an EU court ruled the way it did doesn't surprise me since it basically sucks to be a company in the EU. 

 

Again, you're dealing with the store, NOT the warranty. I can buy something at Bed and Bath and then return it a year later for a full refund or just say I don't like it and I want it in a different color. The product then gets sent back to the manufacturer because of an agreement between the store and the manufacturer. That has nothing to do with warranty replacements. 

 

I am, and I'm thrilled that we don't have the same bullshit laws you have over in the EU. I love not feeling entitled to the world. 

Oh, but you decide what it means? New equivalent means exactly what it says -- something new that is equivalent. That means it has to be new. Just because you rule something else doesn't mean it is right. Also, it wasn't an EU court, it was a Dutch court.  Oh yes, how terrible it most be for companies in the EU! They hate it!

 

Now you went full retarded. You don't think stores gives warranty? It gives exactly the same one as if you had bought it from the manufacturer and perhaps some additional ones. I could also have contacted the manufacturer, but that simply isn't as time effective for me. Do I want to mail it to them and wait a few weeks for replacement or simply walk into a store and get a replacement after filling out some forms? Hmm, tough choice, right?

 

Yes, you can be as thrilled as you want to get bend over by corporations. But you know what? We actually want our corporations to wipe their own ass and not have the government clean up after them.

[79wjd]

6 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

XFX, unlike cheap Apple, will give you a brand new boxed product because that's the right thing to do.  

I would just like to point out that this is XFX's official policy on the matter:

Quote

If XFX or its authorized representative is not able to repair the product, we will replace it with a comparable product that is new or refurbished.

Quote

We use new and refurbished parts made by various manufacturers in performing warranty repairs and in building replacement parts and systems. Refurbished parts and systems are parts or systems that have been returned to XFX, some of which were never used by a customer. All parts and systems are inspected for quality. Replacement parts and systems are covered for the remaining period of the limited hardware warranty for the product you bought. XFX owns all parts removed from repaired products.

So your saint of a company will and does give refurbished replacements as well. So much for taking the moral high ground. 

http://www.xfxforce.com/de/support/xfx-warranty

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Yet they've been sending out brand new ones, not refurbs.  I have the boxed 470 next to me if you don't believe me.  They just don't update some parts of xfxforce.

Or alternatively, that's what they happened to have available to send out. 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, this was a 2-3 year old 280x.  They sent a boxed, brand new, 470.  They could have sent me some other guy's RMA, but they didn't.  XFX instead now sends out new ones.  XFX just doesn't update old parts of their site.  Your alternative facts will not change how they have changed.

Assuming they have stock of another 280x. EVGA also would send out 970s to replace 780s when they ran out of 780s, that didn't mean they wouldn't also send out refurbished cards when available. 

 

My "alternative facts" that are pulled straight off their site. Right, mkay. And they do update their site because they used to have a lifetime warranty, that's no longer the case. 

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, they have refurbed 470s and new ones next to one another.  They gave me a new one.  You failed to grasp that xrfxforce doesn't get updated a lot.  We went over this.  

 

Alternatively Apple designs their products to fail because they are cheap.  Their RMA rates and them being stingy about RMAs, and a court order are proof of this.

Ah yes, so your annecdotal evidence somehow trumps their own listed policy, which clearly does get updated seeing as it shows a 3/2 year warranty rather than a lifetime warranty. 

 

Alternatively, they do not. The court order is proof of nothing other than the fact that Apple defines the words "new equivalent" differently from how the Dutch government does, and the fact that Apple is a much bigger target than many other companies. 

[Carclis]

On 2017-5-3 at 3:26 AM, djdwosk97 said:

An older device has also been run through the paces -- early failures also account for a significant number of total failures. 

 

Their warranty agreement implies they ensure the quality of any refurbished components -- you can choose to believe that or not, but until proven otherwise, they validate the components/devices.

 

If you bothered to read the warranty agreement that you agree to when purchasing the product, you would see that they offer a new equivalent for any warranty claims. Nowhere do they promise a new device or a refund because, frankly, that's ridiculous -- you're not giving in a new product, so why should you be given a new product as a replacement. 

Early failures are a sign that the product wasn't properly tested for quality. If it happens later on it makes no difference since the consumer guarantee was not honoured. Take for instance Australian Consumer Guarantee which covers all products and services and is typically 12 months or more for electrical goods. It ensures that consumers are entitled to a remedy if it has a fault within that period or doesn't work as advertised.

 

"The remedies you can seek from the retailer who sold you the product include a repair, replacement, or refund and in some cases compensation for damages and loss."

 

Also see replacement:

 

"Replaced products must be of an identical type to the product originally supplied. Refunds should be the same amount you have already paid, provided in the same form as your original payment."

 

The key words here are repair of your own device or replacement identical to what you got when you originally made the purchase. This means that you buy a brand new product and have major fault with it then you are either entitled a repair (within reasonable time), a full refund or a brand new product just like you purchased.

 

In this case Dutch law applies and doesn't allow refurbished products to be issued to consumers as replacements for faulty goods. So it's pretty inexcusable that they thought that they could get away with passing off used as new even if they did re-validate the hardware.

[Sakkura]

On 3/5/2017 at 1:39 AM, djdwosk97 said:

Ah yes, so your annecdotal evidence somehow trumps their own listed policy, which clearly does get updated seeing as it shows a 3/2 year warranty rather than a lifetime warranty. 

 

Alternatively, they do not. The court order is proof of nothing other than the fact that Apple defines the words "new equivalent" differently from how the Dutch government does, and the fact that Apple is a much bigger target than many other companies. 

This isn't the Dutch government, it's the Dutch courts.

 

The Danish courts have ruled the exact same way.

 

What Apple is doing is just plain illegal in most of Europe. They are wilfully breaking the law because of extreme greed.

[Yoinkerman]

I find it funny consumers are arguing against objectively better protections, and that Apple actually does worthwhile "refurbishing".  

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

I find it funny consumers are arguing against objectively better protections, and that Apple actually does worthwhile "refurbishing".  

I'm sorry I don't want the government up my ass, because you can be sure -- if they're up the ass of companies, then they're up yours too. Not to mention that companies account for all these regulations against them by increasing the cost of their products. So it doesn't exactly "help" the consumer if you're paying for it upfront. 

 

90% of the RMA requests I've made have resulted in me getting a refurbished product, and I've yet to have an issue with any of them. This isn't something that is unique to Apple.