Its technology... all technology wears out, There is no one silver bullet that stands the test of time..
If these were refushed replacments, then ya, that is against Apple's TOS.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare+
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its technology... all technology wears out, There is no one silver bullet that stands the test of time..
If these were refushed replacments, then ya, that is against Apple's TOS.
Including Apple right? Don't forget, that's where they're based. All of our stuff is designed by Apple, in CA
Yup, let the dumb sue the dumb.
They seem to think that a new model that uses components that were designed for a previous model means that the parts just had to come from stripping out components from that previous model.
As if the Nifty Wazoo performance tire was first used on the Whizzee 5000 sedan, getting your new ZoomZoom 3 from the factory with Nifty Wazoo performance tires on it, the tires had to have come from Whizzee 5000 sedans out in the pick-a-part lot out back.
Makes just about the same amount of sense.
Would it really matter where you draw the line for new replacement? Some will always be unhappy. The important point, setting expectations clearly at time of sale and in the contract. Knowing what you now know would it stop you from buying Apple products? Assumptions cause customers to get angry.
Last edited:
Haha! You sound like an Econ Professor of mine.
It was about my experience when I developed and managed a refurb program in a previous life.
Why do you care if you got a refurbished vs new? when for all intents and purposes it is new?
I think in the face of this, Apple should tighten their QA on their refurbished line. I for one think it could be better.
But would you guys all really rather Apple dispose their returned iphones into a landfill instead? When they could all be perfectly usable with a bit of tweaking and refurbishing?
makes no sense
I think in the face of this, Apple should tighten their QA on their refurbished line. I for one think it could be better.
But would you guys all really rather Apple dispose their returned iphones into a landfill instead? When they could all be perfectly usable with a bit of tweaking and refurbishing?
makes no sense
Unless you have a reliable link stating this, I think that it is extremely unlikely that Apple would waste any money trying to debug and fix whatever is wrong with an individual logic board.
Not only would it be very difficult to desolder many modern parts, but they'd also need a lot of very capable debug techs at high salaries. Spending time repairing almost any board would cost more than it's worth. Plus, soldering in a new part is going to introduce more potential failure points.
So it would not be cost effective for Apple to debug and repair a non-working phone board. With the possible exception of the board with the expensive broadband modem, it makes more economic sense to simply recycle a bad board for its precious metals.
Or they stop offering white box replacements on the spot and start sending the broken iPhones to the depot for the actual repair, which they're doing for the Apple Watch. How would you like to be without your iPhone for a week at time?
People ought to be careful what they ask for. Greed can only go a long way.
except we're talking at the minimum 14 days and at the maximum 2-3 years here...not 30 years.
we're talking about microchips here, not milk.
Yep, a used screen with worn oleophobic coating is most certainly not "equivalent in performance" to a brand new screen. I'm sure they have a battery of tests showing that refurbished microchips are equivalent in performance.
But if the plaintiffs insist that used/refurbished can never be equivalent in performance, then why have the language in the first place? What is "equivalent in performance and reliability" if not new. If it's new, it's not "equivalent in performance." It's new, period.
That iPhone that failed was no longer brand new.
Anyways, my money is where my mouth is. I had an iPad fail and it was replaced under AppleCare+ with a refurbished unit. It works perfectly and I'm happy.
If I'm buying a new product, I buy from a retailer that will take care of DOA issues.. or things that occur in the first month or so. If I'm going to use any policy that is AppleCare+ or similar, I've read the T's and C's and know what to expect. No lawsuit is required.
Put your money where your mouth is by actually reading the AC+ terms and conditions before you purchase it. If it's new, it's not "equivalent in performance and reliability." New is new.
May be reading between the lines or overthinking it but I'm thinking and hoping they meant to say refund for defective parts or something that was damaged already fresh out the box ( mishandled in shipping to the store or customer or in the manufacturing facility) perhaps a little more clarity and explanation is called for from them on that
I don't think this particular lawsuit has much merit. I've read through the AC terms of service when I bought my iPad and its pretty clearly outlined that the terms don't guarantee you a brand new, retail ready replacement.
Of course, as a consumer, I would wishto receive a new in box replacement of whatever is the current generational tech (if I paid 399 for an iPad air, and 2 years later it died and IS covered, I'd want an replacement that is of equal value). But if you don't read the terms of a contract you sign, then you really have no one to blame but yourself when it says you may get refurbed or "like new".
I dont think this case is going to go very far.
Of course, as a consumer, I would wishto receive a new in box replacement of whatever is the current generational tech (if I paid 399 for an iPad air, and 2 years later it died and IS covered, I'd want an replacement that is of equal value). But if you don't read the terms of a contract you sign, then you really have no one to blame but yourself when it says you may get refurbed or "like new".
I dont think this case is going to go very far.
The gist of these lawsuits while perhaps not identical, is definitely quite similar in that Apple provided refurbished units to replace broken or defective ones, rather than new, which is what the plaintiffs had sought or expected.
If you want to argue the finer points of each individual case, I'm sure there are differentiating factors for each but they don't change the overall picture of refurbished vs new, which is the essence of both lawsuits.
Insinuating another poster is an idiot, and his logic is stupidity, just because you don't agree with their point of view is not only uncivilized, but it won't lend any additional credence to your opinion, but rather lower you in other poster's esteem.
I hope the rest of your day goes better.
We can already return for a full refund within the 14-day return period. If you get a damaged or DOA unit out of the box, all you need to do is return it and re-purchase a new retail box.
Actually "some recycled parts" make it into refurbished devices that could potentially and unknowingly NIT Be "new" "as new" or "like new" there's definitely some gray areas and uncertainties as someone who's had 4 refurbished devices with issues over the course of the i4 thru i6 I'd argue there are some potential merit points to the suit.
[doublepost=1469122941][/doublepost]
I meant beyond that period ( say 30 days )
You wrote "something that was damaged already fresh out the box ( mishandled in shipping to the store or customer or in the manufacturing facility)." No reason to wait more than 14 days for that. You snooze, you lose.
If you meant any defects that crop up within 2 years, they can modify the terms and conditions and jack up the cost of AC+ and its deductible even more to cover the increased cost of offering brand new instead of remanufactured as white box replacement. Do you really want to pay more than $99 AC+ and $99 deductible?
Actually, they aren't. My water damaged 6 was replaced by AppleCare with a refurbished unit and this was not made clear at the time. When I attempted to sell it at the end of the year as I always do when purchasing the newest model, I was accused of fraud by the buyer for not disclosing the fact it was refurbished. Thankfully I was able to smooth things over with the buyer, but I was still on the hook for shipping, time lost having to relist the item, and then money lost when it sold for a full 100 dollars less. The AppleCare rep I spoke with over the phone said they'd be replacing mine with a "new" unit, as did the Apple Store genius who actually swapped out devices after verifying mine was non functional. At no point did the term "refurbished" come up at all. Further adding to my frustration was the fact that one of the main reasons why I switched from Assurant through AT&T to AppleCare was the speech I was given by an Apple Store rep about how Assurant replaces broken or lost phones with Third-Party refurbished phones but Apple doesn't. Apparently he failed to specify that it'll still be refurbished, just Apple refurbished.
I ended up going back to Assurant for my 6S, because if I'm going to get a refurb phone either way, at least now I'm covered in case it is lost or stolen, which AppleCare+ doesn't offer.
You would have been off the hook in the first place had you listed it with "I received this replacement iPhone on date xx/xx/xxxx under AppleCare."
Basically everyone on this forum knows that white box replacements may be either brand new or remanufactured.
I have sold retail box iPhones and white box replacement iPhones at the end of the year and it's made essentially no difference in the selling price. If anything, I've actually gotten more for the white box replacement if it was swapped out right before selling because it was in a better condition.
Even if you replace it with a brand new device, some anal-retentive buyers would still get upset because the serial number does not match up with the retail box. Fortunately, the vast majority aren't like that and hence it doesn't make a difference whether it's original, brand new replacement or remanufactured replacement, as long as the condition is the same. Just be sure to disclose exactly how you've acquired it.
Another phony class action lawsuit! Class action lawsuits make me, as a lifelong now retired attorney, ashamed of my profession. Most of these suits end up with the plaintiffs' lawyers getting millions in legal fees and the allegedly "affected" members of the public getting a coupon worth maybe 25 cents, because it's almost always cheaper for the sued corporations to pay this kind of "settlement" rather spend even more millions and millions of dollars to pay their own lawyers to take the case to trial and win it. For the sued corporations, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and for the plaintiffs' lawyers it's a racket.
Shame!
Shame!
if nothing else, being able to advertise an iDevice as new does get you more options
No, you can't advertise even brand new white box replacement as new. Once it's unsealed and operated, it's used. Or the buyer can easily file a not-as-described dispute and will win.
The PCB does, actually, suffer from wear and tear. They are usually poorly built and have very low tolerance to moisture, corrosion and heat. So the longer you use it, the more likely it is that something will become corroded and will fail. This is the most likely cause of failure in electronic devices like phones and computers unless you actually physically get it damaged by dropping it. This happens on its own, no matter how careful you are, since air always contains some moisture. Refurbished PCBs often don't have the protective layer against moisture as they have had chips replaced on them, which makes them even more susceptible to corrosion.
Ask any electronics owner whose device failed one day for no apparent reason. That's all due to something becoming corroded on the PCB. Also, the way there are built, they are only designed to last just about the amount of time you're expected to use them, which to Apple seems like a year or two. So if you get a 2 year old refurbished PCB in your device, it will probably fail much sooner than a new one would, since it's already 2 years old and is about to fail. And usually these failures are due to moisture naturally present in the air, which Apple's warranty does not cover if the water indicators have changed color, which they probably have unless you live in the Sahara desert.
Sure, the device you're getting fixed wasn't new to begin with, and that's the very reason it failed. So replacing it with another used device will just continue a cycle of failures. If your car's tires are worn, you should replace them with new ones, not old ones. Same goes for brake pads, oil, and every single other part on a car. Replacing failed parts with used parts is asking for more premature failures. These cheaply made electronic devices are not designed to last, so gambling with used, refurbished components is silly.
The only valid reason I can think of is the lessened environmental impact, maybe there's a benefit there. But otherwise, it's just saving tiny amount of money that don't seem to get passed onto the consumer.
Here's a video explaining this:
Last edited: