Class Action Lawsuit Over Apple Providing Refurbished Replacement Devices Proceeding to Trial in August

[thejadedmonkey]

On iOS devices, repairs ARE done in the store while you wait. Mac repairs often get done at a repair center - not because of difficulty of repair but because of availability of parts and labor. The primary reason Mac repairs can't be done while you wait is the shear number of parts that would need to be stocked in-store simply doesn't work out favorably. The store could order any necessary parts (3-5 days), or they could mail it to a place that has all the parts and get it repaired and back to you in 3-5 days. Hmm...

The benefit of doing the repair in the store is that

1) You can mail parts to the store, but you don't need to overnight parts from the store to a recycling center. In some cases you can probably recycle directly from the store, preventing the environmental impact from shipping completely. This is a big issue for Apple, so it's surprised they aren't doing this already.

2) This would let me keep. using my. computer while Apple gets the. parts in stock, instead of being without acomputer for 3-5 business days because my stupid spacebar is busted. again.

 

[H2SO4]

Both of these example cover stuff specifically NOT in the warranty.

The first states: "You see, I never intended to keep this computer. I basically ‘abused’ their return policy whilst they repaired the second broken MBP I’ve had in a few months."

It reminds me of the situation when the hotel chain my boss had worked for had this 100% satisfaction guaranteed or you money back promotion. The hotel chain they literally watched this couple abuse this heck out of this possibly from one side of the country to the other.

I have no sympathy for someone who abuses a polity or warranty like this. Neither did Frank Farrington in either his 1914 "Successful Salesmanship: Is the Customer Always Right?" (Mill Supplies. Vol. 4 no. 9. pp. 45–47) or his 1915 Merck Report article "Is the Customer Always Right?". Vol. 24. pp. 134–135. His concussion on in the first report "If the customer is made perfectly to understand what it means for him to be right, what right on his part is, then he can be depended on to be right if he is honest, and if he is dishonest, a little effort should result in catching him at it."

The second (damage though possible misuse) is not covered by the warranty either.

The example given clearly states that Apple had thought the people had apple care on the phone and given information based on that misinformation given by Apple. When Apple found out they messed up instead of charging the $169 they were lawfully due (remember NOT under warranty) they admitted the mess up was on their end and did it for free.

My point about it, I should have been more clear. Is that they are not exactly being up front in that case. Ignore what he did, it's more the Apple are always up front narrative I'm questioning.

 

[H2SO4]

But let's look at it a different way. If your iPhone is a year old, works fine, you're happy with it, if you could go into the store and replace it with a brand new one, would you be willing to pay for that? Now if you go into a store with a one year old phone where part X is broken, if they repair it on the spot you get a one year old repaired phone back. Why would you have a right to a brand new phone?

You could try and answer the question first. Answering a question with a question is sometimes disingenuous.

 

[ESabis]

Should this suit prevail, I'm sure the typical class-action result will follow. The lawyers will get a kajillion dollars, and the class members will get $10 iTunes gift cards.

Thank you Mr. Fritschle, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

Well, guess what: Apple doesn't care what you want. If you want an actual brand new replacement, you can buy one and leave your old phone for credit.

Lol of course they care why else would they have a feedback app. That’s just the silliest thing to say. Oh you! 🙄

 

[Chloros]

JFC, lawyers are at it again.

You buy a new device. It breaks. You hand in your phone, Apple hands you a replacement. Does it work? Yes? Then eff off.

The intelligence here is overwhelming. Why not everyone just buy refurbs at a cheaper price? If it works then eff off

 

[Maximara]

They're not my counter examples? I never posted them

My bad. It is hard to keep track of who is saying what without nested comments.

 

[Maximara]

My point about it, I should have been more clear. Is that they are not exactly being up front in that case.

Again base don their warranties and legal version how are the not "exactly being up front".

Ignore what he did, it's more the Apple are always up front narrative I'm questioning.

"I live in Malaga — although my business is in the UK and the laptop was bought in the UK — so I took it to the Marbella store. A good hour journey each way, plus a toll road — unless I want the journey to be even longer."

Ok the UK has more aggressive customer protection than the US (which is where the court case that started off this whole thing in in)

"During all this discussion one member of Apple staff actually told me ‘There’s the law, and then there’s Apple policy’ and he wasn’t talking about their policy being stronger than the law. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt at first — he’s Spanish and he was speaking a second language — but no, that is what he said and that’s what he meant."

This is me is a red flag that this is not Apple per say but some employee being difficult or trying to cover up they are not a knowledgable as they should be.

"Even senior advisors at Apple have very limited access to the internet at work, which doesn’t just show a shocking level of trust in their staff, but is a genuine hinderance to their ability to do their job."

This isn't unique to Apple. Every job I have had that involved internet use limited access to the internet via the on site computers. Heck this was true of the job I had back in the early 2000s.

On one job we couldn't even connect to the internet via one office computer because someone had gotten a virus/trojan installed on the old Windows XP machine. As long as that one computer was off line things were fine but the moment it was online our provider would be complaining about file usage. No other office computer had this problem and the system disks had been lost years ago and no antivirus program we ran found anything.

I also have to ask what is preventing these "senior advisors at Apple" from looking up things on their own time?

 

[Tech198]

i wonder how you can depute a claim "not as reliable" unless they are a completely different part/knock-off..

If repaired components were new as you bought a Mac, i doubt they should have the cash to make all these great products now... Thus, the saving on new components on repaired machines could be the reason why Apple can go this far today.

 

[Steve Adams]

@H2SO4 Nice deflection.....OK, IF YOU HAD TO SEND YOUR DEVICE IN FOR REPAIR IS IT NEW?

 

[Steve Adams]

On the flip side of that;

Cracked screen MacBook Pro with Touch Bar - Apple Community

discussions.apple.com

Why I owned a Macbook Pro for a day — and what it says to me about the future of Apple | HackerNoon

<strong>On Saturday I bought a new Macbook Pro with touch bar. And on Sunday I returned it.</strong>

hackernoon.com

That's an anecdote that counters your claim.

My device has not been sent in for repair. Next question.

Don't care regarding anecdotes. My experience is MY experience. I make decisions and judgements using MY experience. Anyone else's experiences does not affect me in any way.

 

[bsolar]

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.

The probability of getting a new part with a manufacturing defect twice in a row is exceedingly small unless there are underlying issues with the manufacturing itself. The new part will still be tested after being used in the repair anyway, so it will not be tested any less than a refurbished part in the context of the repair.

The reason refurbished parts need to go through extensive testing is not to exceed the quality of new products but because Apple lost control of the part the moment it got in the hands of the end-user who returned it. Apple is pretty clear about this:

Every Apple Certified Refurbished product completes a rigorous refurbishment process that includes full testing that meets the same functional standards as new Apple products.

The refurbishing testing is explicitly meant to meet the standards of a new product, not exceed it.

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.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Said that in my case my Apple keyboard was first replaced with a refurbished same-model top-case... which failed relatively shortly afterwards and finally got replaced with a new subsequent-model top-case, which still works without issues as of today.

The issue was not refurbished vs. new, but a model with a design defect vs. a model with the design defect mitigated. It might be that in your case the same applied and the second repair was made with a slightly improved model, since getting an alternator fail twice in a row is otherwise quite unlikely.

 

[bsolar]

If an Apple device e.g. iPhone is sent back to base with a faulty screen after a couple of months use, there is nothing to suggest that the logic board, screen or camera of that unit is any less reliable than a brand new unit.

Apple cannot use such parts without verifying though, since for all Apple knows there has been misuse of the device which might cause issues for these components.

That's the reason they have to go through rigorous testing, since Apple can be sure there is no e.g. water damage on a logic board straight out of manufacturing, but they definitely cannot assume the same from a logic board out of an iPhone returned by an end-user for whatever reason.

 

[deevey]

Apple cannot use such parts without verifying though, since for all Apple knows there has been misuse of the device which might cause issues for these components.

That's the reason they have to go through rigorous testing, since Apple can be sure there is no e.g. water damage on a logic board straight out of manufacturing, but they definitely cannot assume the same from a logic board out of an iPhone returned by an end-user for whatever reason.

Exactly, and from what I understand they do. They don't just swap out components from a broken device willy nilly and hope for the best.

There is not that many easily swappable components on a phone anyhow. The Cases / Glass are newly replaced, display panel itself may be re-manufactured. Logic board may be reworked and tested, Cameras / sensors will have been tested and calibrated.

In terms of potential water damage, they can tell pretty fast if its a factor as there are liquid contact indicators inside the device.

I get the feeling we are going to get properly schooled and some will be very surprised on how in depth the Apple refurb process goes once this trial gets underway, if it even gets to that stage.

 

[Steve Adams]

I have no issue buying a refurbished apple product from apple. The issue is when you start buying refurbished apple products from third party vendors. I would NOT do that. You don't know quality control there.

 

[michaelk7]

Had an iPhone 7 that started a screen wave problem. It was replaced 4 times before finding an iPhone that worked. Was disappointed in Apple for the first time.

 

[Wanted797]

I'll play the other side of the fence on this (as I do like refurb parts): Recent MacBooks have very few parts, the logic board is one piece of PCB with everything soldered on it. I doubt Apple considers each component on the logic board a separate part. So if it's a bad logic board that was repaired, that's a pretty good chunk of the product.

I can’t imagine Apple using a “repaired” logic board.

I can imagine you might get a board that was in someone else’s machine for a short period of time and say they cracked the display.

 

[Luposian]

Had an iPhone 7 that started a screen wave problem. It was replaced 4 times before finding an iPhone that worked. Was disappointed in Apple for the first time.

I wonder if what you describe is anything like (or the same thing I have seen on my 5c (when I had it) and 6s). I call it "line shimmer", where the horizontal lines of the screen begin to visibly vibrate, ever so subtly. Seems to happen when the screen gets hot, which I think is actually related to the battery. I can see it, but other people don't seem to be able to. It's actually quite annoying. I know what I'm seeing! I'm NOT crazy!

If anyone knows what I'm talking about, since the LCD pixels can't actually move, then it must be another visual artifact... the refresh rate or something?

 

[Luposian]

Why hate Apple for taking the steps to make their product better?

This is not devil's contract where the wording is twisted but a clear declaration in the warranty what will be done.

It may have been "better" (performance-wise), but it was no longer truly unique. Macs have always been DIFFERENT hardware and DIFFERENT software than PC's (the definition of "PC", being a system that can natively run Windows or other x86 OS). An Intel Mac is basically paying Apple to run their OS on a PC they made. How close was it? Close enough, that you could often run MacOS on a non-Apple PC! Otherwise known as "Hackintoshes". Try doing that with MacOS X 10.3 (Panther; last true, only-PPC version of MacOS X)... can't be done. At least, not with a Retail copy. According to Steve Jobs, EVERY version of MacOS X had an internal Intel doppleganger, but...

I would rather have Apple (or Verizon, in my case with my iPhone 6s, 5c, and 4S) FIX my iPhone, rather than just swap it with a "refurb", "remanuf", or "certified used" unit. I know how long and how much I've used MY phone... I don't know the exact condition/lifespan of the replacement I'm getting...

I always backup and then zap my iPhone to factory, if I ever have to take it to Verizon for work done. My data stays with ME!

 

[Maximara]

It may have been "better" (performance-wise), but it was no longer truly unique. Macs have always been DIFFERENT hardware and DIFFERENT software than PC's (the definition of "PC", being a system that can natively run Windows or other x86 OS). An Intel Mac is basically paying Apple to run their OS on a PC they made. How close was it? Close enough, that you could often run MacOS on a non-Apple PC! Otherwise known as "Hackintoshes".

Hackintoshes were (and are) very finicky. Heck, one of the main reasons Project Star Trek died was that the MacOS would only run on a ridiculously narrow set of PC hardware.

I would rather have Apple (or Verizon, in my case with my iPhone 6s, 5c, and 4S) FIX my iPhone, rather than just swap it with a "refurb", "remanuf", or "certified used" unit. I know how long and how much I've used MY phone... I don't know the exact condition/lifespan of the replacement I'm getting...

The problem as with my father's car showed past a point replacing one part puts enough strain on the other parts that then start to fail. He got was was intended to be a "beater" car from an neighbor for $600 (back in the late 1979s-early 1980s) but wound up putting $1200 into it to keep it running. The neighbor would comment that if he knew that would happen he would nave never sold my father the car.

That is what the siren song of fix-it can result in - putting far more money into something then it is worth or even getting a replacement. There is even a term for it: "Penny wise; pound foolish". A "refurb"", "remanuf", or "certified used" unit, in Apple's case. will be tested - something that a part will have at best minimal (if any) testing.

I again refer to the example of my father's car where the alternator went out. It was replaced by a new alternator alternator which went out a month later. After that we requested a refurbished alternator be put in. Didn't have any alternator problems for the 12 years my father owned the car after that. A new part is just as likely to fail as the original part but a referb part, item has been tested.

I don't understand why people cannot grasp this simple truth. And before anyone wastes our time with 'well they could test the item' argument this brings up another simple truth - if it is tested then it was used in the testing and is by definition no longer new. Catch-22.

 

[Maximara]

The probability of getting a new part with a manufacturing defect twice in a row is exceedingly small unless there are underlying issues with the manufacturing itself. The new part will still be tested after being used in the repair anyway, so it will not be tested any less than a refurbished part in the context of the repair.

And if this new part is tested before you get it, it has been used and is therefore no longer new anymore. Catch-22

 

[ericwn]

My device has not been sent in for repair. Next question.

So device not new, no new replacement. Funny, my car garage does it the same way.

 

[Maximara]

So device not new, no new replacement. Funny, my car garage does it the same way.

I take it you are unfamiliar with Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[ericwn]

I take it you are unfamiliar with Reductio ad absurdum.

Thanks for the pointer, my Latin was a bit rusted but I got it.

Just funny how expectations change for different goods, both of equal importance to many.

 

[bsolar]

And if this new part is tested before you get it, it has been used and is therefore no longer new anymore. Catch-22

No, "new" does exclude the part having been in actual end use before being repurposed, but it definitely does not exclude the part being tested, either as part of the standard manufacturing process or as part of it being installed during a repair.

I for sure expect repairs to be tested, no matter whether the repair is done with new parts or not.