Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Sophisticatednut

macrumors 68020
May 2, 2021
2,326
2,101
Scandinavia
Your example doesn't make any sense. You don't know whether the replacement part was refurbished or new, and refurbished does not automatically indicate lower quality. In fact I've never seen a refurbished Apple product that was in any way sub standard.
I’m sorry but the problem in the lawsuits is apples bad quality on refurbished computers. They are objectively worse than a new product.

And her ok give some evidence for you.
 

Slow Programmer

macrumors regular
Jun 25, 2011
166
42
Hard drive manufacturers need to be hit with a suit like this. If you return a brand new nonfunctioning drive under warranty they will replace it with a refurb.
 

mikethemartian

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2017
1,483
2,239
Melbourne, FL
If I had a choice of a refurbished item vs paying an additional fee for a new one I would take the latter option. If they are replacing full subassemblies it probably isn’t going to be a big problem but if they are reworking boards the quality isn’t going to be as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Populus

squashedpillow

macrumors newbie
Jun 6, 2012
9
5
Wellington, New Zealand
I’ve had refurbished replacements in the past as replacements under warranty. I’ve never had an issue with them, and I think it’s a great practice.

I find it frustrating reading comments on every post saying “I tried these earbuds, but I didn’t like the colour, so I decided to return them”, or “I’ve given these a shot three times, and returned them because they’re still missing xyz”. Where do people think the returns go? That Apple fully replaces the exterior and hands them out as replacements, usually with substantially less use than your existing faulty product, is great for the environment. It’s in Ts and Cs - why would anyone discourage the practice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aParkerMusic

fenjen

macrumors 6502
Nov 9, 2012
352
24
If my screen came from the same manufacturing place than my original screen, it wouldn't have had lower quality.

Same thing applies to batteries. I had that MacBook Pro for almost 10 years. I had to replace the battery at some point. Well, the replacement battery showed signs of quick degradation few months after replacing it, with normal usage. I went there to speak to Geniuses, and they said that the battery was above the 80% of the manufacturing capacity. Thus, the battery was ok. I had to keep that battery, and use less the MacBook. And deal with lower battery life.

You can deny all this without knowing me, but this are my experiences and I think this is a proper place to share them. I love Apple Products, but I am critical with them with those aspects where they haven't met my standards.

If we as customers don't speak out when this happens, then we'll have to deal with lower and lower quality control on their hardware.
This is just how batteries and screens are.. I've had the same experience with new products, where for example my girlfriend's battery degraded very quickly while mine stayed better for much longer. The same holds for screens, where the quality of screens can vary between different new products. This is completely normal (not neccesarily desirable), and this has absolutely nothing to do with being refurbished or not. As far as anyone knows, all the parts just come from the same manufacturing places, and there's no reason to think otherwise. Just because you had some negative experience doesn't mean any reason you just come up with is correct all of a sudden, there are other explanations.
 
Last edited:

aParkerMusic

macrumors 6502
Dec 20, 2021
326
826
What ? If you payed for a service - you need to be served right. If Apple is so worried about e waste they would make repair easier and convenient.
But…you’re getting the service you paid for. You bought either a device with a one-year warranty, or an extended AppleCare+ warranty, both of which specify in the terms and conditions that you may get a new or equivalent to new replacement device if youre seeking service.

Youre not upset that you’re not getting what you paid for. You’re upset because you don’t like what you paid for. That’s very different.

At any rate, I’ve had Apple refurbished devices that lasted for 15 years, so it’s not a quality issue. This is just people finding something, as always, to grumble about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usagora

laptech

macrumors 68040
Apr 26, 2013
3,564
3,896
Earth
This case is proof that wording used in a companies Terms and Conditions is a load of horse manure because if it wasn't, Apple would not have lost. Companies hope that their T&C's will not be challenged in a court of law and that customers will believe that what is written is lawful. Well guess what, they are not and Apple has found out that writing false terms in the T&C can be very expensive.

Just because a company has T&C's and they tell you to read them before committing to buy, it does not mean the T&C's are lawful. This case proves that.
 

laptech

macrumors 68040
Apr 26, 2013
3,564
3,896
Earth
But…you’re getting the service you paid for. You bought either a device with a one-year warranty, or an extended AppleCare+ warranty, both of which specify in the terms and conditions that you may get a new or equivalent to new replacement device if youre seeking service.

Youre not upset that you’re not getting what you paid for. You’re upset because you don’t like what you paid for. That’s very different.

At any rate, I’ve had Apple refurbished devices that lasted for 15 years, so it’s not a quality issue. This is just people finding something, as always, to grumble about.
You are so very wrong so please get it right and please use the FULL wording and not just bits of it that suit your agenda. For this particular issue Apple believed their T&C's allowed them to use refurbished parts where in some cases those refurbished parts degraded the condition of the phone but yet in the T&C's it states very clearly

Apple's Repair Terms and Conditions

parts or products that are new or refurbished and equivalent to new in performance and reliability

....."equivalent to new in performance and reliability". That part is extremely important of which you so very conviently left out in your post. Apples fault here is that they state that refurbished parts will allow the device to be equivalent to new in performance and reliability. That clearly was not happening. What Apple should have done which would have prevented all of this is to state that if refurbished parts are to be used that the device may have some performance and reliabilty issues.

No company can say they will repair your item and bring it back to 'as new condition in performance and reliabilty' and then use refurbished parts that cause the item to have performance and reliabilty issues because it breaches consumer law and anyone that has the money to challenge the company in court will win. There is no way Apple was going to win on this one.
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,170
23,841
Gotta be in it to win it
This case is proof that wording used in a companies Terms and Conditions is a load of horse manure because if it wasn't, Apple would not have lost. Companies hope that their T&C's will not be challenged in a court of law and that customers will believe that what is written is lawful. Well guess what, they are not and Apple has found out that writing false terms in the T&C can be very expensive.

Just because a company has T&C's and they tell you to read them before committing to buy, it does not mean the T&C's are lawful. This case proves that.
Not that I think apple is right, but they settled…different than admitting guilt.
 

Sophisticatednut

macrumors 68020
May 2, 2021
2,326
2,101
Scandinavia
Not that I think apple is right, but they settled…different than admitting guilt.
Well if apple actually repaired their refurbished models properly then it wouldn’t be a problem. There are numerous examples of refurbished apple computers with questionable repairs. Louis Rossman have shown great examples of them
 

miniyou64

macrumors 6502a
Jul 8, 2008
749
2,690
My iPhone 6S was a refurb that died 4 months after getting it 1 week before iPhone X came out and Apple wouldn’t cover it. Sent it out for repair and the board had a short circuit on it. All these people going on and on about how great Apple refurbs are haven’t experienced that. Never trust a refurb. Apple still does this BS with all their other products too.
 

kgraf6

macrumors member
Aug 18, 2007
41
3
Melbourne, Australia
If you’ve ever been to the Genius Bar and had your iPhone, iPad or iPod replaced with a ‘new’ one - then you’ve had an Apple refurbished device.

The official wording they prefer to use is ‘remanufactured’.

It’s always a brand new exterior, with a combination of used and new components inside based on what they have available.

That’s why the replacement device comes in a black plastic box. Then your old device goes back into that same box so that it can be sent back where as many of the internal components are salvaged and used to make another remanufactured device.

And the cycle continues.
 

russell_314

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2019
6,036
8,939
USA
nice. So the lawyers get tens of millions as usual and everyone else gets $1.99 each
Exactly. And the funny thing is this whole thing will be added to the cost of other Apple products so you’re paying for it either way ?‍♂️?
 

hatchettjack

macrumors 6502a
Oct 1, 2020
509
371
if you buy an iPhone and a week later it dies, you should get a new device! after a year you should get a refurb!
 

laptech

macrumors 68040
Apr 26, 2013
3,564
3,896
Earth
if you buy an iPhone and a week later it dies, you should get a new device! after a year you should get a refurb!
To be honest I do not think many iphone owners would have a problem with this. The problem is that Apple in it's T&C's make the bold statement that a device that uses refurbished parts will be the same in performance and reliability as a new one and it has backfired on them because owners of refurbished iphones are holding Apple to that statement when their refurbished iphones starts having problems within a few days or weeks of it being repaired which contradicts the 'performance and relibility of a new one' statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hatchettjack

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,170
23,841
Gotta be in it to win it
To be honest I do not think many iphone owners would have a problem with this. The problem is that Apple in it's T&C's make the bold statement that a device that uses refurbished parts will be the same in performance and reliability as a new one and it has backfired on them because owners of refurbished iphones are holding Apple to that statement when their refurbished iphones starts having problems within a few days or weeks of it being repaired which contradicts the 'performance and relibility of a new one' statement.
Except that it is also true that new devices sometimes are lacking in performance and reliability. However, Apple should stand by their guarantees.
 

aParkerMusic

macrumors 6502
Dec 20, 2021
326
826
You are so very wrong so please get it right and please use the FULL wording and not just bits of it that suit your agenda. For this particular issue Apple believed their T&C's allowed them to use refurbished parts where in some cases those refurbished parts degraded the condition of the phone but yet in the T&C's it states very clearly



....."equivalent to new in performance and reliability". That part is extremely important of which you so very conviently left out in your post. Apples fault here is that they state that refurbished parts will allow the device to be equivalent to new in performance and reliability. That clearly was not happening. What Apple should have done which would have prevented all of this is to state that if refurbished parts are to be used that the device may have some performance and reliabilty issues.

No company can say they will repair your item and bring it back to 'as new condition in performance and reliabilty' and then use refurbished parts that cause the item to have performance and reliabilty issues because it breaches consumer law and anyone that has the money to challenge the company in court will win. There is no way Apple was going to win on this one.
Uh oh, you’re confused again. Don’t worry, we’re used to it.

So, the issue you have is not that they may use “refurbished” parts, it’s that in some cases, allegedly, the “refurbished“ parts led to unacceptable defective performance. Because, of course, if there were no question about the parts’ integrity, you’d have no problem…right? Ha! If there were some units that did not hold up, that would be a quality control issue, not an inherent issue in using refurbished parts assuming the refurbished parts are legitimately vetted.

The reality is this: people don’t like idea of getting a “refurbished” device, regardless of what is even “refurbished” in it. It could be a single screw. They don’t care. They think it’s beneath them. I’ve had multiple refurbished device from Apple, one of which still works after 15 years. I guess Ive just been lucky.

People are unreasonable. I’ve known people who were annoyed that they were getting display service at Apple, and Apple wasn’t doing “something“ about cosmetic damage to the sides of the phone. Huh? Ridiculous.

You can say you don’t like the policy all you want. You can certainly take issue with what constitutes “equivalent to new”, that’s fair. But I don’t believe for one moment that these replacement devices have some sort of out-of-whack failure rate. And, frankly, class action suits are notoriously sketchy, and “let’s just harass them in the press”-based.
 

Sophisticatednut

macrumors 68020
May 2, 2021
2,326
2,101
Scandinavia
Uh oh, you’re confused again. Don’t worry, we’re used to it.

So, the issue you have is not that they may use “refurbished” parts, it’s that in some cases, allegedly, the “refurbished“ parts led to unacceptable defective performance. Because, of course, if there were no question about the parts’ integrity, you’d have no problem…right? Ha! If there were some units that did not hold up, that would be a quality control issue, not an inherent issue in using refurbished parts assuming the refurbished parts are legitimately vetted.

The reality is this: people don’t like idea of getting a “refurbished” device, regardless of what is even “refurbished” in it. It could be a single screw. They don’t care. They think it’s beneath them. I’ve had multiple refurbished device from Apple, one of which still works after 15 years. I guess Ive just been lucky.

People are unreasonable. I’ve known people who were annoyed that they were getting display service at Apple, and Apple wasn’t doing “something“ about cosmetic damage to the sides of the phone. Huh? Ridiculous.

You can say you don’t like the policy all you want. You can certainly take issue with what constitutes “equivalent to new”, that’s fair. But I don’t believe for one moment that these replacement devices have some sort of out-of-whack failure rate. And, frankly, class action suits are notoriously sketchy, and “let’s just harass them in the press”-based.
You seem to have no clue about how apple repair their computers. It has nothing to do with a chip or acre being new. It’s all about repairs in refurbished machines are extrodernarely bad and low quality.

It’s literally a quality control issue of their refurbished computers compared to an actually new one.

Here is a video of a very common refurbishment fix of a known problem apple lost a lawsuit and have extended warranty for the 2012-2013 MacBooks pros.


A and this is how it’s supposed to look like
5A62520B-0849-4D38-AF11-C229C7ACF6E0.jpeg


The same thing is apples constant practice of seeming to roast their motherboards to fix soldering issues, but unfortunately just delaying the problem and making it worse. This is also from refurbished computers. And it’s not supposed to look burned.

B5151C71-2B98-4350-87B6-5E16E9EE682E.png


This is from the same motherboard but just further away and is actually healthy as it should be.
F3645FED-7A7D-4150-A457-D1AE1CEA0816.jpeg
2D5730A5-BC8C-4F45-8998-F600C0F9B9F1.png

just look up apple’s history with extended warranty and how they always fight them hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggaenald

Reggaenald

Suspended
Sep 26, 2021
864
798
Nothing but great. New is new. Refurbished is not. End of story.

I’ve had my fair share of experiences with replacement devices that may of may not have been refurbished, but there was this one time O got a new iPhone with the same problem my last had, so I send it in right away, got a replacement with yet again the same problem, send it back in. Had 5 replacement until they didn’t offer mail ins from my location anymore… Granted, this was in 2017, but my definitely refurbished 11 Pro’s from last year gave me an unwelcome throwback.
Maybe it has nothing to do with refurbished devices, maybe Apples quality control just stinks by itself, no matter the device. All I can say is that I never, never, received a not-faulty device from Apple, reaching from $450-$2k. Don’t ask why I stick around.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Phone Junky
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.