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.
Danish Court Rules Apple Must Replace Man's iPhone With New Rather Than Refurbished Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll admit that I don't know the backstory of this case. Was he responsible for damaging his phone, but it was covered under some type of warranty? Was the phone faulty? I think these all need to be evaluated differently, and replacing a phone doesn't always need to equal "new". If Apple was at no fault for how the person treated their phone that led to it needing to be replaced, then why should Apple need to hand over a brand new device? I guess I really should read the full story before drawing a conclusion. But I do stand by my thinking that refurbished are just as good as new in terms of quality and reliability, likely even better, but they may not have that "new car smell" or be perfectly blemish-free.
No, my post got messed up. I was responding to the person who said that Apple Care represented "privilege" as in something that you were born into and had no right to have and shouldn't have, etc.
If Apple were not at fault, the court would not have found in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, his statutory rights do not cover misuse or reasonable wear and tear. In that case he could look at his manufacturer's warranty but the likelihood is that if it were not a manufacturing fault then any redress would purely be goodwill at the discretion of the vendor/Apple.
Not just smartphones, but in the realm of a lot! On one end of the spectrum, you have a vast portion of the population slowly destroying the economy by patronizing places like Walmart, and on the other end, there's this growing sense of entitlement and instant gratification. Overall, it's a slow erosion of common sense and long-term sight.
I strongly believe in voting with your wallet. When I walk into a hardware store and a sturdy metal stool costs $20 and then plastic one next to it costs $35, which one will I be getting? Did that plastic stool really cost more to make and distribute? Not a chance. It's a form of abuse, and consumers should not stand for it. Apple holds standards up high, so they will continue to get my dollars, even when I disagree with their pricing on certain items.
If anyone actually believes this, then let's make a deal: next time you buy a brand new iDevice, keep it in its box until refurbs are available, and then swap me the new one for a refurb that I'll buy for much cheaper.
Better yet, since you think it's "better", you can happily pay me extra for you getting a refurb, while I get the new one.
What? No takers? I didn't think so
--
As for testing, Apple says they undergo the equivalent of the same tests as new ones get at the factory. In other words, the same tests that the later failed device passed the first time.
The fact is, Apple and everyone else sells refurbs for less than new devices, because they're worth less. They've already undergone unknown stresses by the previous owner(s). And been exposed to who knows what.
Personally, I've bought quite a few Apple refurbs. But I did so because they're cheaper, not because of some belief that they're somehow better than new.
Last edited:
If you've ever been in a car accident, parts they use for repair may not be brand new. Seats, door panels, doors, windows.... you name it. If there is a totaled car on the lot, and it has intact parts or parts that can be made to look like new, they will definitely use it.
Ha ha- well, we can certainly hope, but there are apparently many on this site that would rather side with Apple than all of us consumers. They are easy to spot because they always jump to the world's richest company's side on nearly everything, and get seriously angry at criticism aka "whining" on this forum. Either they have a personal financial stake and they own tens of thousands of dollars of Apple stock, or their parents pay for all their itoys, or they work for Apple, or maybe they just are hopelessly huge fanatics for everything Apple.... Pretty funny (but kinda sad too). (BTW, this doesn't appear to be just an American thing.)
Anyways, back on topic, it seems to be sensible if you buy a refurb model and it fails, you should expect a refurb (not new) as a replacement. If you paid full price and bought new, you should get a replacement thats new, too. Seems reasonable.
I think other companies replace with refurbished items too so its definitely not just Apple. I remember reading of a hard drive company that had a nice long warranty period, but if your drive fails, they state in the warranty they may replace it with a refurbished model (and that includes a SHORTENED warranty period commensurate with refurbished products!) That's downright evil.
This is news because it's unfair that Chinese methods used by American companies are condemned equally as Chinese methods used by the Chinese.
The real question is whether a refurb iPhone (from Apple) maintains the same value as a non-refurb unit. I've never, in any dealings of selling outright to individuals or to buy-back services, been asked whether a unit is a refurb unit or not, and have been offered fair market value regardless - so I would say that the value of the iPhone is what it is, regardless.
Here's what's going to happen: Apple will require all iPhones needing service to be sent in to a repair facility instead of replacing whole devices. You'll be without your phone for a few days, but hey, you're getting new parts!
I'm not refuting the fact that Apple should follow Danish law. That is the precedent and it should be followed. But I don't agree with your logic that a damaged product should always be replaced with a new one.
You say a refurbished item has lesser value. But so does a used iPhone. In this specific case, the person had his iPhone for a year. Apple should replace it with an item of equal or greater value. Since it's been used for a year, a refurbished phone has equal and, as some have argued, possibly greater value. Apple can replace it with a new one at their discretion. (Actually happened to me when I had my iPhone 5 replaced under warranty. The genius told me it was a new and not a refurbished phone.)
Also what qualifies this as a "luxury" item? Are there actual metrics that qualifies an item as a luxury?
I think you do not quite understand civil law... Yes, the judge goes back to the statute, but also considers the precedents. And if you think that the judge has misinterpreted the precedents, than you can appeal and you might win, because the higher the court, the more a civil law suit looks like a common law suit.
Apple doesn't sell refurbished products at full price so it's difficult to argue they maintain the same value.
Not being asked might just mean your buyers assume is not refurbished unless explicitly stated so, which is a pretty reasonable expectation. A better question would be, if they find out it's refurbished and you didn't disclose it to them before the sale, would they be entitled to a refund? In my opinion they actually might.
But do you believe you would be entitled to a brand new (same model and year) car, because the waterpump or muffler or whatever part, failed within the warranty period? Also in your phone's example, most likely only a single part had been replaced due to a defect, rather than all the phone's components, and in the case with Apple, they always replace the outer shell, and afaik, also the battery, in addition to rigorous quality testing of the entire unit, before sending them out as replacements for defective units.
If the replacement part is covered under warranty for the remainder of the balance of said warranty, and the part(s) substituted for the defective part(s) have been rigorously tested and inspected, and passed those quality assurance tests, and the performance of the unit with the replaced part(s) in question is unaffected, it shouldn't really matter whether those parts were new or refurb.
If this ruling is upheld, and similar rulings spread to other jurisdictions, this could have significant consequences for disposal and recycling of massive amounts of perfectly functioning parts now suddenly deemed 'unworthy'.
Coming from someone who is an extremely satisfied, repeat purchaser of various items from Apple's Refurb Store.
Last edited:
Well that is exactly what happens. If a major component of a car fails, you'll most likely get a remanufactured replacement.
Or are you suggesting that alternatively the refurb process in Denmark should be replaced with repair only? I.e., everyone waits?
Yea...no. Wrong. A REPUTABLE repair shop isn't going to pull parts from a wreck. Get real.
Plan B)
Don't sell anything in Denmark.
[doublepost=1481314986][/doublepost]
I'd give him a SAMSUNG S7 , so he learns to appreciate things!
News flash. You need to come out of your bubble. The iPhones we have in the USA are exactly the same phones that are sold in Denmark and they aren't designed to "Danish" standards, they've been sold in the US long before they were ever available for sale in Denmark, a lovely country. Actually, no offense, Apple loves the Danes, but you're typically one of the last countries to get Apple products for sale because your population is so small and Apple sends them to its major markets first. You're also one of the European countries not to even have an Apple store.
So, sorry to burst your bubble, it's not that Apple doesn't love you, they are in fact helping your economy by building a new data center there, but no Apple isn't designing it's products because of some municipal law passed in Denmark.
Glaedelig Jul!
We are usually in the first or second round of the launches. Apple likes us a lot, we have SIRI support in native Danish. There is about 400 languages with more than a million people, Danish is not even in the top 100 spoken. SIRI supports 21 and Danish is one of them.