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

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

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?

Prorating is a very common thing in the car/insurance industry -- i.e. you total your car, a lot of insurance companies won't pay for the full cost of the car, because you've used x% of it. 

[Curious Pineapple]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Prorating is a very common thing in the car/insurance industry -- i.e. you total your car, a lot of insurance companies won't pay for the full cost of the car, because you've used x% of it. 

In a crash that's to be expected, but if for example, a batch of paint has issues that leads to bubbling and an entire bodyshell developing rust issues, you would want a new car or a complete rebuild and repaint. You wouldn't want a different car that's been back to the factory, given a used engine, polished and sent back out as new.

[Sauron]

On 28/10/2016 at 2:25 PM, 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.

Same for me, but at the same time it's a matter of principle. sometimes you also get problems from parts that weren't actually as undamaged as they seemed to be. 

[Arri]

11 hours ago, QBtech said:

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. 

Except in this case, it wasn't faulty manufacturing. So again, Apple is not entitled to give a replacement phone as new.

 

I still fail to see why Apple should give you a new phone when you're giving them a used one back. A refurbished iPhone is a fully functioning repaired iPhone and that is what consumers should receive when their old devices break.

[alizaidi2000]

Usually i'm not on the side of apple. But honestly, it doesn't matter as long as those parts are still functional, who gives a shit? Oh they reuse certain parts? who cares. All they are doing is saving money.

[spamy666]

I see this as being okay as those parts still work like new. saves them money and materials so I don't see why not.

[79wjd]

20 minutes ago, alizaidi2000 said:

Usually i'm not on the side of apple. But honestly, it doesn't matter as long as those parts are still functional, who gives a shit? Oh they reuse certain parts? who cares. All they are doing is saving money.

Entitled people who think that for some reason they should get a brand new phone to replace their used (and broken) phone. 

[alizaidi2000]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Entitled people who think that for some reason they should get a brand new phone to replace their used (and broken) phone. 

Yeah,i know. But ultimately its just recycling which is a good thing. There are absolutely no downsides

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, alizaidi2000 said:

Yeah,i know. But ultimately its just recycling which is a good thing. There are absolutely no downsides

Well, the downside is that you're trading an item used by you for an item with components used by someone else. Both are used, but from your perspective, they're not the same -- i.e. something used by me > something used by someone else since I know how I treated it. But from anyone else's perspective (including Apple's), they're both equal. So with all that said, it's perfectly fair to get something used to replace your used broken thing (not to mention it's standard in the industry). 

 

Plus, I'd say the advantages and disadvantages of used parts balance out anyway -- sure it's used so it's more likely to fail, but at the same time, it's been tested for ____ while the previous owner used the device whereas the brand new component in your device was likely never tested (only the batch it was a part of was tested with a few spot checks). 

[spartaman64]

On 10/28/2016 at 7:25 AM, 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.

for me its the opposite. i dont care if it has scratches and dents as long as it functions perfectly

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, alizaidi2000 said:

Usually i'm not on the side of apple. But honestly, it doesn't matter as long as those parts are still functional, who gives a shit? Oh they reuse certain parts? who cares. All they are doing is saving money.

if they were used for like a month sure who cares but if they were used for years then that becomes a problem

[Yoinkerman]

Lol the hilarity of people arguing against their own interests

[79wjd]

14 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

Lol the hilarity of people arguing against their own interests

You mean people who are realistic in their expectations. 

 

I'd love to not have to pay taxes, but you don't see me arguing against paying any taxes (even though it's against my own interest) because it's not a realistic expectation. 

[Yoinkerman]

37 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You mean people who are realistic in their expectations. 

 

I'd love to not have to pay taxes, but you don't see me arguing against paying any taxes (even though it's against my own interest) because it's not a realistic expectation. 

I think it's a realistic expectation to be informed if something has recycled parts in it.  

[mariushm]

My thoughts ..

If the replaced part was an IC that blew up for some reasons like water infiltration or just a bad batch coming out the factory, I'd be ok with having it replaced with a known good one.

However, I wouldn't be OK with them replacing my flash storage (the memory chips) inside with memory chips recovered from other stores, because these chips have a finite number of erases/writes and I couldn't know for sure how did the previous owner of the phone used for harvesting parts used that phone.

 

People like Rossman dude buy faulty Apple boards by weight, they're boards that failed quality control for some reasons like shorted circuit traces inside the board. It's too time consuming to desolder and reuse and too risky for companies like Apple, some components don't like going through high temperature ovens more than once ,, and the automated machines often prefer to receive the parts in rolls of specific width and format to feed through chip shooters.

 

So basically, rather than hiring people to desolder components from broken boards and place them back in rolls, they'd rather just sell the broken boards by weight to people that repair apple products and then these guys desolder chips as needed and repair stuff for people. 

 

Apple does the same in their own whatever they call them,when it's cheaper than just using a new pcb... they refurbish boards and most often when some guy shows up they just replace the board with a previously repaired board, or they give them a new phone with refurbished board inside... the bad phone goes to be repaired and put in another case for the next customer that needs refurbished phones.

 

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

You mean people who are realistic in their expectations. 

 

I'd love to not have to pay taxes, but you don't see me arguing against paying any taxes (even though it's against my own interest) because it's not a realistic expectation. 

 

There's nothing unrealistic about this expectation. Bear in mind that Apple had lots of other options, they didn't have to deceptively give the customer a refurbished phone via a clause that requires it to be a new phone (when that's what you originally bought). They could have given the refurb along with an app store credit or whatever, and everything would most likely have been fine. Or they could have repaired the phone. They chose to break the law.

[Sakkura]

On 29/10/2016 at 9:51 PM, Volbet said:

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.

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

Yes, they are legally binding. You can take the ruling to the bailiff if the company doesn't react, to get some of their assets.

You are referring to §78 stk. 3, but have apparently forgotten to read §78 stk. 2.

 

The ruling isn't there yet, but everyone who's knowledgeable about this expects Apple to lose.

 

You didn't provide the law. And the case number you provided pointed to a ruling that disagrees with your claims.

 

No, 7 attempts were never accepted in the ruling. The case was a high court ruling overturning a city court ruling and giving the customer a refund. The city court had ruled in favor of the seller on the basis of there allegedly only having been 2 repair attempts within a short time frame, and on an intermittent flaw that was difficult to replicate.

[79wjd]

3 hours ago, Yoinkerman said:

I think it's a realistic expectation to be informed if something has recycled parts in it.  

Have you read Apple's Service FAQ or the iPhone warranty agreement? (i.e. the things that tell you what you should expect) 

 

Quote

 

We might be able to fix or replace your product for an out-of-warranty fee. Your replacement iPhone will be new

or equivalent to new in both performance and reliability. The Apple Limited Warranty is in addition to rights provided by consumer law."

https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/service

 

And here's the iPhone Warranty:

Quote

 

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.

http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/products/ios-warranty-document-us.html

[Sakkura]

11 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Have you read Apple's Service FAQ or the iPhone warranty agreement? (i.e. the things that tell you what you should expect) 

 

https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/service

 

And here's the iPhone Warranty:

http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/products/ios-warranty-document-us.html

The iOS warranty is irrelevant as this concerns the mandatory EU warranty. Furthermore, Apple says they'll replace it with a new phone OR a phone that's equivalent to new. When customers asked which of these it is in their specific cases, Apple lied and said it's new (rather than a refurbished/remanufactured phone that is, in their opinion, as good as a new phone).

[79wjd]

18 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The iOS warranty is irrelevant as this concerns the mandatory EU warranty. Furthermore, Apple says they'll replace it with a new phone OR a phone that's equivalent to new. When customers asked which of these it is in their specific cases, Apple lied and said it's new (rather than a refurbished/remanufactured phone that is, in their opinion, as good as a new phone).

Danish Sales of Goods Act (translated to english): 

http://www.sprog.asb.dk/sn/Danish Sale of Goods Act.pdf

Quote

 

The provisions of this Act shall apply unless otherwise agreed, expressly or by implication, in a contract or required by trade usage or other custom.

 

Quote

 

78.-(1) If the goods are not in conformity with the contract, the buyer may

(i) require remedy of the lack of conformity;
(ii) require delivery of substitute goods that are in conformity with the contract;
(iii) require an appropriate reduction of the price; or
(iv) declare the contract avoided unless the lack of conformity is immaterial.
(2) The buyer may not require remedy of the lack of conformity or delivery of substitute goods if
the completion of the remedy is impossible or will cause the seller disproportionate expense.
Regard shall be had to the value of conforming goods, the significance of the lack of conformity
and whether an alternative remedy can be completed without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(3) If the seller offers to remedy the lack of conformity or to deliver substitute goods, the buyer may
not require an appropriate reduction of the price or declare the contract avoided.
(4) The seller shall comply with any requirement or offer to remedy the lack of conformity or
deliver substitute goods within a reasonable time and without expense and significant
inconvenience to the buyer, see section 79 of this Act. Failing this, the buyer may require an
appropriate reduction of the price, declare the contract avoided, require delivery of substitute goods
or, provided this can be done without disproportionate expense, cause the lack of conformity to be
remedied at the expense of the seller.

 

 

Apple's Danish warranty agreement (Translated to english): 

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

 

Quote

 

If a product is defective, the consumer can particularly make use of the rights of the Danish Sale of Goods Act. It is made clear from the Danish Sale of Goods Act, the consumer, provided that he has a claim within a reasonable time, for a period of two years effective from the date of delivery is entitled to make a claim directly to the vendor as regards defects in the purchased product, and basically you have your choice right 1) to have the product repaired, 2) to request delivery of a replacement product, 3) to request a proportionate reduction in the purchase price or 4) to terminate the agreement, if the defect must be considered substantial. However, there are many factors that influence whether you are entitled to make use of these rights. Apple's One-Year Limited Warranty, as construed in accordance with Danish law, gives you a supplement to your consumer rights for a period of one year in the following areas: 1) do not prove that the advertised shortage already existed at the delivery date, unless is incompatible with the defect type (according to the sale of Goods Act transferred the burden of proof to you 6 months after delivery), 2) you have the opportunity to make use of the rights under Apple - One year limited warranty for your Apple product through Apple's local outlets in almost the whole world, 3) in case of errors or malfunctions in your Apple product, you can make your claim against Apple, even if you purchased the product by third parties. This warranty is based on the following provision in the European guarantee safeguarding consumers' rights in Europe. In case of inconsistencies between the European text and the above references for how the Danish consumer law relates to the guarantee, how the guarantee construed in accordance with Danish law, the latter shall prevail by consumer goods subject to Danish law. These requirements apply, subject to the conditions and requirements under local law.

If during this warranty period, submit a complaint to Apple in accordance with this warranty, Apple may choose to:

(I) repair the Apple Product using new parts or previously used parts in performance and reliability equivalent to new parts or

(Ii) replace the Apple Product with the same model (or with your consent, a product with similar functionality), composed of new and / or previously anvendente parts in terms of performance and stability equivalent to new parts or

(Iii) refund the purchase price against return of your Apple product.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Danish Sales of Goods Act (translated to english): 

http://www.sprog.asb.dk/sn/Danish Sale of Goods Act.pdf

 

 

 

Apple's Danish warranty agreement (Translated to english): 

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

 

 

 

That's a 1-year warranty, not related to the mandatory 2-year warranty. It says so in bold near the top of the second page you linked. And again, Apple was giving people replacement phones they said were new, but which turned out to be refurbished/remanufactured. Apple lied.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That's a 1-year warranty, not related to the mandatory 2-year warranty. It says so in bold near the top of the second page you linked. And again, Apple was giving people replacement phones they said were new, but which turned out to be refurbished/remanufactured. Apple lied.

So, because Apple lists the warranty as 1 year, there warranty applies to the first year, but then the stricter danish law applies to the second year....umm

 

And again, even the original article says new equivalent is fine. 

 

Apple lied or an employee lied? 

 

(Also, technically a phone that is built using some used parts is new)

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

So, because Apple lists the warranty as 1 year, there warranty applies to the first year, but then the stricter danish law applies to the second year....umm

 

Apple lied or an employee lied? 

 

(Also, technically a phone that is built using some used parts is new)

The mandatory 2-year warranty applies during the first year too.

 

Apple is not a (physical) person, so of course they lied via their employees. But it appears to have been systematic.

 

A phone (re)built from used parts is not a factory new phone.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The mandatory 2-year warranty applies during the first year too.

 

Apple is not a (physical) person, so of course they lied via their employees. But it appears to have been systematic.

 

A phone (re)built from used parts is not a factory new phone.

Apple's warranty policy can overrule the Danish Sales of Goods Act:  "The provisions of this Act shall apply unless otherwise agreed, expressly or by implication, in a contract or required by trade usage or other custom." 

 

And there is a big difference. An employee is likely an idiot who sees "new equivalent" as "new". 

 

A factory new phone is one that is newly out of the factory. It implies nothing about the parts used to construct it. If the individual components used represented the status of the finished product, then by definition, nothing would be new and everything would be just shy of 14 billion years old. 

 

[Sakkura]

11 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Apple's warranty policy can overrule the Danish Sales of Goods Act:  "The provisions of this Act shall apply unless otherwise agreed, expressly or by implication, in a contract or required by trade usage or other custom." 

 

And there is a big difference. An employee is likely an idiot who sees "new equivalent" as "new". 

 

A factory new phone is one that is newly out of the factory. It implies nothing about the parts used to construct it. If the individual components used represented the status of the finished product, then by definition, nothing would be new and everything would be just shy of 14 billion years old. 

 

No, their warranty policy cannot override the act when it comes to the mandatory EU warranty. You edited out part of §1 of the act:

 

Quote

§ 1. Denne lovs bestemmelser kommer kun til anvendelse, for så vidt ikke andet er udtrykkelig aftalt, eller må anses for indeholdt i aftalen eller følger af handelsbrug eller anden sædvane.

Stk. 2. I forbrugerkøb, jf. § 4 a, kan § 2, stk. 1, § 4 a, § 50, §§ 55-58, § 73, stk. 1 og 2, §§ 74 og 75, § 76, stk. 1, nr. 1-3, og stk. 2 og 3, §§ 77-79, § 80, stk. 1, og §§ 81-87 dog ikke fraviges til skade for køberen.

Stk. 3. Bestemmelsen i § 54, stk. 4, kan ikke fraviges til skade for en senere erhverver, som hovedsagelig handler uden for sit erhverv.

Stk. 2 says that various sections of the act (including the ones concerning the mandatory EU warranty) cannot be set aside contractually in consumer purchases (well, they can be set aside in favor of the consumer, but not the other way).

 

And this is not about a single employee making a dumb mistake. This has happened routinely in other cases and thus appears to be a result of company policy. In any case, Apple is still responsible for the mistakes of its employees.

 

A factory new phone is one newly built with new components. Apple's engineer testified that they had a separate facility to assembling the remanufactured phones, such that they are materially different from the actually new phones. It was also revealed that they sell such phones in other countries, at a lower price, and thus Apple knew they were illegally giving people a product worth less than what they were legally entitled to.