well.. the thing is 99% of the time it is replaced with another device. Key break you replace half of the computer, one pin is bad and you get a new motherboard ?If it's unrepairable.
well.. the thing is 99% of the time it is replaced with another device. Key break you replace half of the computer, one pin is bad and you get a new motherboard ?If it's unrepairable.
I’m sorry but the problem in the lawsuits is apples bad quality on refurbished computers. They are objectively worse than a new product.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.
Incorrect. You have no idea what you’re talking about.I’d be unhappy as hell if I received a refurbished machine replacement. Especially after paying for AppleCare. Apple is wrong on this one.
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.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.
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.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.
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 clearlyBut…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.
Apple's Repair Terms and Conditions
parts or products that are new or refurbished and equivalent to new in performance and reliability
Not that I think apple is right, but they settled…different than admitting guilt.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.
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 themNot that I think apple is right, but they settled…different than admitting guilt.
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 ?♂️?nice. So the lawyers get tens of millions as usual and everyone else gets $1.99 each
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.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!
Except that it is also true that new devices sometimes are lacking in performance and reliability. However, Apple should stand by their guarantees.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.
Yeah, 30 million dollars in legal fees.Well if you read the whole article, it looks like legal fees are around 30 million already.
IDK but I should have been a lawyer.Yeah, 30 million dollars in legal fees.
Why the absolute eff is this a thing?
Uh oh, you’re confused again. Don’t worry, we’re used to it.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.
Can you pull off Warwick Davis’s leprechaun portrayal?IDK but I should have been a lawyer.
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.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.