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

[Enderman]

11 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Caps from a dead motherboard. Not a working one. And yes it does increase the chance of failure as its impossible to know if the caps have sustained any damage internally.

If they had been internally damaged, the it would be obvious because when placed in the new device IT WOULD NOT WORK.

Clearly the device the guy got was working perfectly fine.

 

Seriously, stop jumping on the apple hate bandwagon like all the other kids.

[SansVarnic]

Absolutely just down right stupid. 

Sometimes I think the danish don't where to stop...

Of course Apple would do this and about 95% of every electronics device manufacture in the world.  

If ain't broke ... reuse it.

[QBtech]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

And those themselves could have hidden problems.

Anything you buy can have hidden problems, thats why we have warranties. But logic dictates a phone existing of components that have individually been checked by an engineer to be free of problems is less prone to problems than one that has solely parts that have been subjected to random checks etc. 

[Ktk]

People should applaud companies for not being wasteful. These materials aren't going to be abundant forever, you know.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140314-the-worlds-scarcest-material

 

I even expect a sizeable chunk of users here not to recycle all their tech.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, QBtech said:

Anything you buy can have hidden problems, thats why we have warranties. But logic dictates a phone existing of components that have individually been checked by an engineer to be free of problems is less prone to problems than one that has solely parts that have been subjected to random checks etc. 

The only one who even picks up on any flaw inside an Apple device are the unofficial repairers.

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

If they had been internally damaged, the it would be obvious because when placed in the new device IT WOULD NOT WORK.

Clearly the device the guy got was working perfectly fine.

 

Seriously, stop jumping on the apple hate bandwagon like all the other kids.

Not always. Some times if a capacitor is warm (Eg. A Tantalum capacitor,)

there are no problems, when its cold however they will act erratically. And then there is the insistence on using faulty parts and censoring unauthorised repairers (Eg. iPhone 6 touchscreen).

[Centurius]

7 hours ago, zMeul said:

I am agreeing for products that need repairs in post warranty, but absolutely not agreeing for products that are still under warranty

At any given time when a device gets broken there is big chance it's only a single part with all other parts quite likely still being fine. So if those parts can still pass the tests I don't see why anyone should object regardless of warranty status.

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, Centurius said:

At any given time when a device gets broken there is big chance it's only a single part with all other parts quite likely still being fine. So if those parts can still pass the tests I don't see why anyone should object regardless of warranty status.

and who's to determine that?! the same company that failed to make the product right in the 1st place!? look at Samsung, they still don't know what made those batteries pop-up

 

the fact is electronics are perishable and these days, they are even manufacturing them to "live" right in that warranty period time frame

[Sakkura]

4 hours ago, Volbet said:

And all those cases have numbers that you can refere to. 

 

I would suggest you look up case number U 2009.1278 V, where the court accepted 7 repair attempts before granting the consumer a return. 

And sure, there is a time limit (usually 3 weeks give or take), but that wasn't what we were discussing. 

 

The buyers choice is also pretty illusory since the seller is ultimatly the one that choses. 

 

Luckily, it isn't the industry representaives that make laws nor are they the ones that interpret laws. 

And neither does the ministry (atleast not in the traditional sense).

Even Forbruger Ombudsmandens ruling isn't legally binding. 

 

What you seem to fail at is look at this from an objective point of view, The court hasn't spoken yet, so the question is still up in the air. 

Even if Apple has acted completly out of bounds, they still haven't done anything illegal. We'll have to wait untill December 9th to find that out.

And even they they'll probably appeal it to a higher court. 

And it's childish to demand someone trawls through all the decisions for those numbers. 13/07778 for a start, you can check the rest yourself.

 

U 2009.1278 V does not establish that it takes 7 repair attempts before the consumer can put their foot down and get a refund. In fact a crucial point of contention in that case was whether there had been 2 repair attempts in rapid succession (almost comparable to just 1 attempt), or 7 attempts.

 

The seller is not the one that chooses. The buyer chooses, and the seller may in some situations be able to override that choice.

 

The consumer rights board does interpret consumer law and pass legally binding judgement on disputes. The ministry has no such power, but they obviously are an authority on how the law works. And like everyone else, they agree that Apple is clearly breaking the law.

 

You are the one failing to look at this from an objective point of view. The facts and every single expert agree that Apple is breaking the law. Apple themselves have admitted the same fact in court today.

[NinerL]

As long as it functions the same and isn't damaged Idc.

[Arri]

Here's my two cents. A model should not be advertised as "new" if it has old parts that have been used. That being said, if the phone was broken and being replaced under warranty, then it shouldn't be a new phone in the first place and should be refurbished. So if Apple gave him a refurbished iPhone as a replacement, I'm totally fine with this. If Apple sold a refurbished phone to this man as "new", then that's a problem.

[Volbet]

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

And it's childish to demand someone trawls through all the decisions for those numbers. 13/07778 for a start, you can check the rest yourself.

So it's childish to ask for sources?

 

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

U 2009.1278 V does not establish that it takes 7 repair attempts before the consumer can put their foot down and get a refund. In fact a crucial point of contention in that case was whether there had been 2 repair attempts in rapid succession (almost comparable to just 1 attempt), or 7 attempts.

But it also established that 7 attempts is an acceptable amount of repair attempts before a return being granted.

It's debatable how relevant the case is in practice, but it's non the less there, and future cases would have to interpret that case to find out the real world use of it. 

 

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

The seller is not the one that chooses. The buyer chooses, and the seller may in some situations be able to override that choice.

Not in certain situation. Only if the buyer demands a redelivery or a repair is it fully the consumers choice. 

If the consumer demands a refund that choice is pretty much illusory unless it's granted by the seller.

 

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

The consumer rights board does interpret consumer law and pass legally binding judgement on disputes. The ministry has no such power, but they obviously are an authority on how the law works. And like everyone else, they agree that Apple is clearly breaking the law.

Sure, the consumer board does interpret the law but their rulings aren't legally binding,

It has been a politcal topic for almost 10 years to make their rulings legally binding, but it has never been put into law.

As of right now, the courts are the only institution that can make legally binding rulings on this subject. 

 

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

The ministry has no such power, but they obviously are an authority on how the law works. And like everyone else, they agree that Apple is clearly breaking the law.

 

You are the one failing to look at this from an objective point of view. The facts and every single expert agree that Apple is breaking the law. Apple themselves have admitted the same fact in court today.

And don't necessarily disagree. I do agree that Apple has more than likely broken the law in this instant.

But again, the consumer board, the ministry, the industry representatives, other experts and I are not judges, so our opinion on this case is only based on more or less qualified guess work. 

 

And Apple did not admit to breaking the law in the court session. They adimitted to giving the consumer a refurbished phone that was monetarily worth less than a new phone, but still functioned 100% the same. 

From that point they claimed to have fulfilled §78, 2. I would say this claim is far fetched, but the case can certainly be made.

[sof006]

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Absolutely just down right stupid. 

Sometimes I think the danish don't where to stop...

Of course Apple would do this and about 95% of every electronics device manufacture in the world.  

If ain't broke ... reuse it.

Exactly, its called recycling. It also saves money and resources in the long run.

[QBtech]

Okay here is how I see it.

 

Apple sells it's phones in 3 "tiers":

 

  A) New

  B) Remanufactured

  C) Refurbished

 

(They do not do it for every model but when they have a batch of either B or C they will try to move it.)

 

No matter which store usually A>(B≈C). B and C are for me basically interchangeable so henceforth i will just refer to them as Refurbs.

 

Due to Apple actually putting a price on refurbs from time to time if my apple phone breaks under warranty I expect a totally new phone as replacement, as that is what I bought in the first place, and legally speaking they failed to deliver. If that is not possible due to discontinuation etc I will accept a refurb if they communicate it properly, preferably with some kinda proof they cant deliver. I still would like the option to just get my cash back, but seeing they are atleast making an effort to accommodate I don't find that absolutely necessary.

 

No new ones or Refurbs available? Then I either expect my money back or a new higher tier phone (4->4s). No new higher tier phone than higher tier refurb, and on and on and on. 

 

This is in my (and most consumer right groups) eyes how it should be handled and Apple failed to do that in this case.

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

On 10/28/2016 at 8:37 AM, AluminiumTech said:

"Apple. Coming up with new innovative ways of ripping people off"

 

AluminiumTech 2016

Truest statement on the internet of all time?

[Arri]

43 minutes ago, QBtech said:

Due to Apple actually putting a price on refurbs from time to time if my apple phone breaks under warranty I expect a totally new phone as replacement, as that is what I bought in the first place, and legally speaking they failed to deliver. If that is not possible due to discontinuation etc I will accept a refurb if they communicate it properly, preferably with some kinda proof they cant deliver. I still would like the option to just get my cash back, but seeing they are atleast making an effort to accommodate I don't find that absolutely necessary.

Which is why you got a new phone in the first place. 

 

When my car breaks down under warranty, I better get a new car!! Because thats what I bought in the first place! /s

[QBtech]

2 hours ago, Arri said:

Which is why you got a new phone in the first place. 

 

When my car breaks down under warranty, I better get a new car!! Because thats what I bought in the first place! /s

If your engine explodes a month after you bought a new car due to faulthy manufacturing, damn sure you deserve a new car or your money back.

An unrepairable phone is equal to an unrepairable (totalled) car.

 

If your car breaks down under warranty and it can be repaired and the manufacturer was it fault they will fix it for you. 

[Shahnewaz]

On 2016-10-28 at 8:23 AM, DozerKitty said:

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

Isn't that a good thing? Repair and reuse parts, make less waste...

Am I misunderstanding something?

[RexinOridle]

Re using parts is not necessarily a bad thing. But that price though. Ripping us off.

[Godlygamer23]

On 10/28/2016 at 10:22 AM, Dan Castellaneta said:

I don't see a problem with this. Most other companies do what Apple does. But if Apple does it, all of you guys ride the bandwagon and drag them down.

The problem here is you are paying for something which was not already used, according to the advertisement. According to Apple's methods, they are effectively giving you a refurbished product, not a brand new one. I don't care what company does it, and what purpose the device serves. You paid for a brand new product that was not used by anyone else(besides the manufacturer's own testing), but you are receiving something that is effectively used.

 

It seems this is actually about replacement devices only. Not brand new parts. And therefore, the above does not apply as most companies will not give you a brand new device as replacement AFAIK.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Godlygamer23

[Godlygamer23]

15 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

Isn't that a good thing? Repair and reuse parts, make less waste...

Am I misunderstanding something?

The components they used could be compromised. Sorry, but if you are putting used parts in any device and selling it as brand new, that's false advertising. It is not brand new. I don't care if it's a single capacitor. It doesn't quality as brand new.

 

That being said, if it's a replacement device, I'm not too sure how common it is for someone to receive a brand new device. 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Godlygamer23

[Sakkura]

11 hours ago, Volbet said:

So it's childish to ask for sources?

 

But it also established that 7 attempts is an acceptable amount of repair attempts before a return being granted.

It's debatable how relevant the case is in practice, but it's non the less there, and future cases would have to interpret that case to find out the real world use of it. 

 

Not in certain situation. Only if the buyer demands a redelivery or a repair is it fully the consumers choice. 

If the consumer demands a refund that choice is pretty much illusory unless it's granted by the seller.

 

Sure, the consumer board does interpret the law but their rulings aren't legally binding,

It has been a politcal topic for almost 10 years to make their rulings legally binding, but it has never been put into law.

As of right now, the courts are the only institution that can make legally binding rulings on this subject. 

 

And don't necessarily disagree. I do agree that Apple has more than likely broken the law in this instant.

But again, the consumer board, the ministry, the industry representatives, other experts and I are not judges, so our opinion on this case is only based on more or less qualified guess work. 

 

And Apple did not admit to breaking the law in the court session. They adimitted to giving the consumer a refurbished phone that was monetarily worth less than a new phone, but still functioned 100% the same. 

From that point they claimed to have fulfilled §78, 2. I would say this claim is far fetched, but the case can certainly be made.

It's childish to ask me for a mile long list of sources it would take days to dig up. Especially when you're not providing any sources of your own.

 

It did not establish that 7 attempts is an acceptable number of attempts. The final ruling was in favor of the customer getting a refund.

 

No, you are wrong again about who has the choice. I just quoted §78, regardless of what the buyer chooses, the seller can overrule that choice in certain circumstances.

 

The rulings of the consumer complaints board are legally binding. If, for example, a company is ordered to pay the complainant a sum of money, the complainant can eg. have their assets seized via the bailiff if they don't pay.

 

Apple admitted to giving him a phone that was worth less than what he originally bought, which is a clear violation of the law.

6 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

Isn't that a good thing? Repair and reuse parts, make less waste...

Am I misunderstanding something?

 

Repair and reuse is absolutely fine. Just don't give the customer a refurbished phone in situations where they're entitled to a new one, and especially don't do that without telling them.

 

Note that Apple has a right, under this piece of legislation, to repair the item. They instead chose to replace the item with a new item, except they illegally gave the customer a used item instead.

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

The rulings of the consumer complaints board are legally binding. If, for example, a company is ordered to pay the complainant a sum of money, the complainant can eg. have their assets seized via the bailiff if they don't pay.

No, they are not legally binding: https://taenk.dk/raadgivning-og-rettigheder/saadan-klager-du

Neither the seller nor the buyer is obliged to follow the consumer boards ruling.

If you want your money or your merchandise you have to go to the courts. 

However. the consumer board will help you with legal assistance and getting the case to court. 

If the court rules in your favour, you can then get your money via the baliff.

 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

No, you are wrong again about who has the choice. I just quoted §78, regardless of what the buyer chooses, the seller can overrule that choice in certain circumstances.

Under what circumstances? §78 stk. 3 doesn't mention any circumstances.

By the word of §78 stk. 3 the seller can decide on the methode in any and all cases as long as it's done within resonable time.   

 

The only opening would be in §79, but I can't find any practice on that. 

 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

Apple admitted to giving him a phone that was worth less than what he originally bought, which is a clear violation of the law.

Neither you nor I know that for certain yet. The ruling is not untill the 9th of December.

What we can do is guess, and as I said, I would tend to agree that Apple isn't following the law in this case.

But all of that is just qualified guess work right now. 

 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

It's childish to ask me for a mile long list of sources it would take days to dig up. Especially when you're not providing any sources of your own.

Days? It takes a couple of hours max. 

Atleast that what it takes me when I'm at work. 

 

And didn't I provide sources? I provided the law and I provided a case number. 

And I use the same argumentation commonly found in legal litterature. 

 

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

It did not establish that 7 attempts is an acceptable number of attempts. The final ruling was in favor of the customer getting a refund..

At what point does the ruling say that?

As I remember the ruling, 7 attempts was accepted, but the prospect of an 8th attempt wasn't, due whole process looking to take longer than a reasonable amount of time, since 3 months had already passed. 

[TheReal1980]

In an environmental standpoint that is pretty good if you think about it...

[Curious Pineapple]

If I buy anything brand new and it fails, I don't expect to get back something that has already failed before. If it's getting on a bit, maybe a year old then meh.

 

Putting it in car terms again, who would be happy with a dealer offering a new vehicle to replace one that maybe has rust issues from a bad batch of paint, but being given a car that was taken apart, re-assembled, had 15,000 miles on the engine and part-worn tyres as a replacement for a 2 month old vehicle?

[PRTI]

On 10/28/2016 at 3:05 PM, 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 still can't match Samsung in company size