Apple. They have directly employed staff overseeing the works along with their consultants.
The larger tech clients always have a direct employee on site.
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.
Class Action Lawsuit Over Apple Providing Refurbished Replacement Devices Proceeding to Trial in August
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The larger tech clients always have a direct employee on site.
We had someone who worked at Apple who claimed that the reason Copeland was so far behind was because Apple used "emulators" and the code as so black box that they didn't know what it did anymore. When they removed a piece of code these emulators said wasn't called the system promptly crashed. I'm still not sure how real that was.
Also some contracts specify that new materials (not equivalents) be used we had some really gonzo regulations at the Forest Service and BLM though nothing compared to the state.
Last edited:
Apple play hard ball. You get to do that when you have a lot of money. The contracts had very high expectations but 'new' wasn't specified.
Apple decided to throw their ample, (prospective monetary), weight around. And it worked.
Just seems funny that they expect it but won't extend the same to others.
"'remanufactured' devices are not 'equivalent to new in performance and reliability'"
This is true. They are better.
I don't touch pre-owned devices for the same reason as pre-owned underwear, toothbrush, etc. You never know where it's been such as dropped in the toilet.
There may have been verbal agreements you weren't aware of or some intermediate had a bee in their bonnet about refurbished. You know just like the people in this lawsuit.
It may have not been that simple. I have seen the employees of a company do things and claim it is corporate policy when in reality it wasn't.
In a lot of cases a refurbished Apple product is just a returned open box and pretty close to new. Especially internal components. The one time that I felt like I got a bad deal was a brand new $3000 MacBook Pro that had a graphics card issue within 3 weeks of purchase. It was replaced with what I think was a refurbished MacBook Pro that ended up needing two more repairs under AppleCare.
If it's replaced under warranty due to a manufacturing defect I expect the replacement to be new. The reason is that a manufacturing defect means the seller never actually delivered me a compliant product satisfying the sale contract in the first place.
It's often the case such defective products can be identified only after some actual use, but doesn't change that the product was defective as delivered.
If the product needs to be replaced for other reasons, e.g. abnormal use, it's not a warranty replacement due to a manufacturing defect, so the same does not apply.
I was not the ultimate contract holder but I have seen all of the documents relating to the job;There may have been verbal agreements you weren't aware of or some intermediate had a bee in their bonnet about refurbished. You know just like the people in this lawsuit.
It may have not been that simple. I have seen the employees of a company do things and claim it is corporate policy when in reality it wasn't.
Timescales.
Costs.
Manpower resource.
Hardware resource.
Terms and conditions.
It happens with big business and you pick your battle and decide at the time which is more important to you in the grand scheme of things.
I've had large clients blatantly say that they are not paying legitimate and contractually agreed cancellation fees due to "the large amount of business they provide". That is often what big boys do and you decide whether a few monies here would be outweighed by a potential multiple of those monies later.
As I said there may have been verbal agreements as well. You know like the one made between Kennedy and Lucas.
Funny thing about that. It sounds like breach of contract...which is what this lawsuit is about. As pointed out many times what Apple is doing is endemic throughout the industry but unlike many of the other Apple is up front about what it is doing.
Its like the whole anti-trust BS. Apple doesn't have a controlling percentage in either the PC or mobile market and yet there is all this screaming about monopoly while true monopolies (like cable companies) go laughing to the bank.
The craziest thing in that insanity is that it is being claimed that Google and Apple are monopolies in the same market. How the freaking heck does that even work with no evidence of any agreement between Apple and Google for this to make a lick of sense?!
How about the whole patent troll insanity which depends on this 'big bad company does something bad' idea even if the company claiming this never made a product involving the patent in its life?
Last edited:
In the vast majority of cases, verbal agreements play second fiddle to written ones.
It was breach of contract, but do you quibble over £1500 now and lose out on £100K later?
I don't believe they are upfront at all, (in my case I'd seen the paperwork and the verbal thing isn't realistic). I do believe that they talk the talk and make a big noise about it and have it written in to their contracts but not always do they have the courage of their convictions.
What is not upfront about:
"If a defect arises during the Warranty Period, Apple, at its option and to the extent permitted by law will (1) repair the product at no charge using new parts or parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, (2) exchange the product with a functionally equivalent product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (3) refund the original purchase price. This warranty excludes damage resulting from abuse, accident, modifications or other causes that are not defects in materials and workmanship."
Further down there is this:
"Some states do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty lasts, or allow exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitations or exclusions may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights, which vary from state to state."
YouTube channel claims Apple is refusing to fix its broken iMac Pro shows things are never as simple as people make them to be.
I'm talking in general. In fact my statement was perhaps a little tool harsh.
It should read, "I don't believe they are that upfront".
"'remanufactured' devices are not 'equivalent to new in performance and reliability'"
This is true. They are better.
Is it true or reasonable that trend to think that an already failed device that got fixed, remanufactured, etc has now even lower chances to fail than if it were new? Similar to if meteors have a chance to land on earth uniformly random, the first city to get hit by one suddenly becomes very unlikely to be hit by the next and hence safe. However at the same time, probabilities don’t care about the past, the probability to be hit on the next event (in isolation) is still the same as the previous one.
Lately l have seen a lot of articles and complaints about not wanting used SSDs because of wear and tear for iPhones, latest MacBooks, etc... however the lifespan numbers seem to range between a decade to hundreds of years with hypothetical scenarios like writing several GBs a day... that’s for me is effectively m enough to not worry.
The life span of an SSD - how long does it last and what can be done to take care?
In fact, the starting times of SSD drives weren’t easy: The first SSD storages suffered from firmware problems and decreases of power. However, the development of SSD technology hasn’t stagnated since…
www.compuram.de
Text cropped for size purposes:
In that example, a 1TB has close to 2TB of data written to it per year, that sounds ample enough? Would be interesting to know what’s the best rule of thumb for how long an SSD can last.
Again what is not upfront about parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability?
A little digging showed the legal version of the warranty:
"1.3 Parts and Labor. In servicing your product, Apple may use parts or products that are new or refurbished and equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
The use of refurbished is spelled out and the claim back in 2016 of "The word "refurbished" appears only once in the AppleCare+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long." is more misleading BS as you can see from the number this is in the third paragraph.
More the way that is worded it heavily implies the warranty is 33 pages long. No company would ever give a warranty that is 33 normal sized pages long, not even if they were totally unhinged. In fact, the old 2005 AppleCare warranty is still online and it is at best only 5 normal sized pages long.
Thankfully someone quoted the relevant AppleCare material as it existed when the case was brought:
"If during the Coverage Period, you submit a valid claim by notifying Apple that (i) a defect in materials and workmanship has arisen in the Covered Equipment, or (ii) the capacity of a covered battery to hold an electrical charge is less than eighty percent (80%) of its original specifications, Apple will either (a) repair the defect at no charge, using new or refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability, or (b) exchange the Covered Equipment with a replacement product that is new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability, and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product. If Apple exchanges the Covered Equipment, the original product becomes Apple’s property and the replacement product is your property with coverage for the remaining period of the Plan."
You can hem and haw all you want but there it is in black and white "refurbished parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability,"
Last edited:
This sounds fine to me. When I worked at an AASP they sold their own warranty that was crap. You could buy it on everything you could get AppleCare+ on as well as some older model devices. Not only did they use only refurbished parts, but they only provided enough replacement credit for the device's current value. So you could get an older model iPad with this warranty, and three years later exercise it but only get $65 which can't even get you a ghetto knockoff.
At least Apple will still cover the device regardless of current market value, and you can always complain a bunch for a CS Code to a newer model device entirely.
At least Apple will still cover the device regardless of current market value, and you can always complain a bunch for a CS Code to a newer model device entirely.
Well you can speak to what you expect, but when I bring in a device I've been using for 6 months and have likely dropped, scuffed, scratched, etc. I don't expect to get a brand-new device right off the shelf. First of all, that's not an equivalent trade: Apple gets an old device and I get a new one. Second, its outrageously wasteful. Refurbished devices are just as good—if not better—than new devices.
That may be what you expect, but that's not at all what the law provides for. Apple guarantees their product for X time, and if the product is defective it will be replaced "with the same model...formed from new and/or previously used parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability" or repaired "using new or previously used parts that are equivalent to new in performance and reliability."
Your uninformed and unrealistic expectations don't change the terms of the contract.
You’ve made literally no argument for your position that refurbished isn’t equivalent to new; you just posit it as if it’s a fact. Refurbished Apple devices have a brand-new battery, a brand-new screen, and a brand-new outer case. Literally every user-facing piece is new. Apple also tests every single refurb to make sure it works, unlike new ones.
Exactly my point. As as repeatedly pointed out this use of refurbished parts is not unique to Apple. Then there is the issue of the supposedly 33 page warranty claim. Who on Earth writes warranties that long?!
I fully understand the minimum mandatory requirement to satisfy the warranty don't require Apple to perform a full replacement. I still expect them to do better than the bare legal minimum, especially if the defect is detected in a very short time from purchase.
I had to deal with hardware repairs only due to the MacBook Pro butterfly keyboard being defective and the problem presented itself more than 1 year after purchase: in that case I obviously was fine with a repair with refurbished components, although from what they told me they actually used a brand-new top-case from even a newer model than my original.
And that is the key issue with the court case. The whole case hinges around the idea that Apple did not meet the minimum mandatory requirement. It involves the ignorant claim that refurbished is not as good as new despite the fact Apple clearly the products and materials must complete "a rigorous refurbishment process that includes full testing that meets the same functional standards as new Apple products."
A new product cannot have that thorough a testing...because if it did it would not be new but be used! QED.
No product is 100% free of defects which is that the warranty is designed to protect against. A new part is just as likely to fail as the part it is replacing. A refurbished part by comparison is tested making the odds that it is defective less.
In fact an incident with my father's car proves this. The alternator went out and was replaced with a new one and a month later that alternator went bad. It was replaced with a refurbished one (guaranteed via testing) which ran for well the 12 more years my father had the car.
Last edited: