I would also like to add that it's slightly different if you open a box and it came broken. In most cases, someone had this broken phone with them for an extended time, and the refurbished phone is in better cosmetic condition than the phone they gave Apple that was defective.
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
The reason why AC+ is pretty expensive for what they offer is people make a habit of replacing their iPhones before selling, as well as people deliberately damage their iPhones when they feel like a replacement and think nothing of it. Their jacking up the deductible to $99 from $79 (originally $49) is supposed to discourage this.
You want to Apple to jack up the cost of AC+ and its deductible even further? Then go ahead and ask Nanny States of America to pass a law requiring brand new devices as white box replacements.
Last edited:
It was set up as a new phone as I mentioned, she had never had an apple before, nor had a backup. The phone already had AppleID's associated with it out of the box. I still have not been able to delete them and occasionally iCloud pops up with a prompt for one of the passwords we have clearly never had so you have to cancel.
Sounds like you may have synced pirated music/media to the device (after setting up as new) .... Because Even if you purposely bought a refurb or 2nd hand phone, this issue wouldn't happen, unless it was on the home screen (rather than the hello screen) fresh out the box.
Who else is offering this level of service? Where can I walk into a Samsung or Google store and walk out with a replacement in 10 minutes?
Although I too think this case is without merit, I have to say that if, in fact, the refurbished units were generally not as good as the original device before whatever calamity overtook it, the plaintiffs might have a point. If you pay for AppleCare, you have the right to expect that your specific device will either be repaired, or that it will be replaced by a device that is has pretty much the same value as the one you trashed just before you trashed it, or about the same value as your repaired original device would have. I believe that Apple can prove that it meets those requirements, with occasional exceptions. When there is an exception, I believe that Apple would swap it for conforming device.
Of course, were I Apple's GC, I would recommend offering Applecare Premium, which--at a higher price--provides a brand new device as a replacement. If the customer chose to take the lower-priced Applecare with the current definition of quality, it would be awfully tough for the customer to later demand to receive that which he was offered and declined to pay for.
Really? How many "refurbished" iPhones have you had? You make it seem like it's a common occurrence because "every" iPhone you've had "ALWAYS" was defective. I used to work at the genius bar and have swapped out 100's of iPhone, iPods, and iPads. The quality has been consistently superb and looks exactly like a new device. Reason is because they are.
[doublepost=1469163463][/doublepost]
If you buy a new device at Apple and it turns out to defective within the first 10 days you can return it and get a new one. The forum topic here that people are discussing is about people who are expecting NEW iPhones that they have broken or had to return due to mechanical issues past the return window. Customers want new devices even though they are turning in damaged or used devices. Try going to car manufacturer/dealer and return the car you ran into a tree. They will send you to the insurance company who will REPAIR the car not replace it unless totaled. Then I still doubt you'll get a new one. Just something that has the same value of the one you destroyed. This suit is gonna get tossed out court.
[doublepost=1469163805][/doublepost]
You couldn't be more right! Leading up to a launch or shortly after, Apple support gets a big surge of iPhones that suddenly stop working or are "accidently" damaged. This is so people can sell new iPhones or trade them in when they get the new one. The big indicator is that they don't want the protective cover removed or the device even powered on.
I believe everything is new except for the inside. I've had refurbished apple products and they work just as good as a brand new product.
Very true, internal parts do get used. My replacement phone was bad enough. My replacement 6S would die after freezing for 2 seconds, won't turn on unless plugged into power outlet. Genius but not Genius Bar rep kept saying its software issue, start phone from scratch and setup as new iPhone. I stood my ground and denied to take that replacement and wanted another one as it was my 3rd trip for the same issue. Guess what, I've been using this replacement phone for over 2 months now and not even single time has it died like that on me. So I was fair to ask that idiot rep to replace my phone for which he kept giving me hard time.
If I buy a brand new phone, I expect a replacement phone to be new as well after 14 days. What's my fault if phone starts giving issues after 14 days, so you bunch of idiots protecting Apple are saying that it is fine for them to issue a replacement refurbished phone. Hell no, I want new one. I'm sure if it came down to an electronic that interests you, you'll make an issue of it.
Me, I think they should give the supervisors at AC+ and the managers at the Apple store a soft code that they can specify new rather than refurbished (say, if it's in the first 60 days) - just as a goodwill effort.
If you think your refurb is a lemon, blast new software on it and use it for a week without doing a restore (restore contacts and calendar data, not potentially corrupt application data). If it's fine, then you have corrupt app data in your backup (now you painfully install and re-setup your apps from scratch).
If it's not, I've never seen Apple not make it right. (but, I also don't go into the store frothing at the mouth either)
If you think your refurb is a lemon, blast new software on it and use it for a week without doing a restore (restore contacts and calendar data, not potentially corrupt application data). If it's fine, then you have corrupt app data in your backup (now you painfully install and re-setup your apps from scratch).
If it's not, I've never seen Apple not make it right. (but, I also don't go into the store frothing at the mouth either)
it's likely nothing more than a way of tracking inventory and accounting.
At IBM (eons ago) we had FRU's (field replaceable unit) numbers. Part numbers for warranty replacement. That all this will be - an alternate method for Apple to be able to track warranty replacements.
Well, I for one agree with you. It'd be nothing for them to have a battery of diagnostic tests automated after their robots strip the phone apart. All tests pass, it's good to go, only minor tweaks to the board required they'd do it (labour's pretty cheap in much of the world), anything else and it goes to full recycling.
3 iPhone 6 (easiest phone to break so far), 1 iPhone 5, 1 iPhone 5c, 2 iPhone 4s, 3 iPhone 3GS, 1 iPad 3rd gen
(in my family over the span of 7 years. We break a lot of phones.)
the iPhone 4S was the worst. The small edge of the stainless steel wasn't polished and so has a matte chamfer... completely different look to my original carrier supplied one. I didn't bother to change it again though
So this means brand new units kept breaking too, since you got replacement iPhones for them.
I've damaged a couple of phones under AppleCare+, and haven't had any serious issues with the (presumably refurbished) replacements I got.
I suppose that any court ruling requiring them to replace devices with NEW instead of refurbished ones would surely bolster the supply of refurbished or used phones on the market -- but still it seems very wasteful to me.
I suppose that any court ruling requiring them to replace devices with NEW instead of refurbished ones would surely bolster the supply of refurbished or used phones on the market -- but still it seems very wasteful to me.
It won't bolster the supply of refurbished or used iPhones on the market because Apple doesn't sell refurbished iPhones, at least in the U.S. You can check the Certified Refurbished Store on apple.com to confirm this yourself. Apple remanufactures iPhones swapped out under warranty or returned within the 14-day return period only for warranty, out of warranty and AC+ purposes. If that court ruling happens, it'd just add to the landfill AND increase the cost of AC+ and its deductible as Apple will pass the increased cost of providing brand new instead of remanufactured as white box replacement to the customer.
Clearly one point some here are missing is "new" isn't always better. The defective devices they are taking in for repair are the "new" ones that are broken. If the refurb is like new (meaning it works and has no cosmetic issues) then whats to complain about? Also when going in for repairs the mentioned "new" phones being taken in for repair are not technically new anymore either since they have been USED.
So the narrative goes like this: "I want my iPhone that was new 2 months ago but is now used and broken to be replaced with a new device not a refurb."
The issue is once your phone is used its used and expecting a new one to replace it months down the road is nuts. You paid for a phone that works and that is what you would be getting. Now if it were with say a week or two then I see the point. But face it, the way people use their devices they become "used" real quick for the most part.
Selling at a steep discount no way says they are inferior. No one would ever pay the exact same price for an open box verses new for anything. Doesnt mean they are'nt just as good. I have purchased a LOT of refurb/open box items in my day to save the $$. Typically they come with the same warranty (even Apples stuff does) so why not? But would I pay the exact same for that as one sealed from factory, of course not.
"Like for like" I agree but if you have a 60 day old iPhone it is USED not new any longer so you get a used one LIKE it.
Exactly!! For some reason folks seem to think THEIR used phone isn't really used because they bought it new. Even when its broken and taken in for service.
@sbailey4 Heh...you're using logic to fight an emotional argument. The people insisting on a new iPhone when their broken one is several months old I picture as red faced and stamping their feet. It's an irrational, emotional response. Only because they feel entitled to a new "shiny" as it's Apple and dammit, they deserve it! *smirk*
AC+ is, ultimately, an insurance policy. This lawsuit will be tossed out on its ear, regardless of how litigation-happy California is.
The people insisting on a new iPhone when their broken one is several months old I picture as red faced and stamping their feet. It's an irrational, emotional response. Only because they feel entitled to a new "shiny" as it's Apple and dammit, they deserve it! *smirk*AC+ is, ultimately, an insurance policy. This lawsuit will be tossed out on its ear, regardless of how litigation-happy California is.
I treat my devices better than some people treat their children. They go into a case and a screen protector is attached the moment I open the box. A refurbished frankenphone has nothing on the original it is replacing, period, especially when Apple doesn't outright state that is what you are getting. Why the double speak then if it's a good deal? Why at no point did Apple identify the replacement as refurbished if it's no big deal? After reading the complaint, that fact there is a large part of the plantif's issue.
Oh man, you're right. I totally didn't realize that. People complaining about getting a refurbished phone when they brought back a used phone are just lame.
[doublepost=1469220142][/doublepost]
Nah. That's just lame. You're bringing back a used phone -- and in the case of AppleCare+, maybe even one you *dropped* and broke. So you get a refurbished phone that is indistinguishable from new. You'd rather what, that every phone with a broken screen goes into landfill instead of being fixed and put back out there? Seems very petty to me, dude.
[doublepost=1469220407][/doublepost]
Frankenphone? Please. I would bet money you would be unable to distinguish between a new and Apple-refurbished phone -- or any other Apple product for that matter.