I've read some of the posts here, and the comments on Facebook, and i think that there are a lot of misconseptions about 1. the ruling 2. the whole replacement process.
So let's start over - how do you repair stuff?
Normally when things break, it is rarelt the whole thing that is broke, but part that needs to be repaired or changed. Take a car for example. If your car breaks down, your entire car is not being exchanged. That is ridiculous and expensive.
In the past, when you'r phone broke, your phone was repaired. This was either the display, logic board, battery, and so on, that could be replaced. But with the latest iphones, the phones have gotten much more complex, compact, thus harder to repair and service by everyone. Repairing stuff also takes time, and not having a smartphone is hard in our society.
So Apple, and almost all other manufacturers, does this in a clever way. They exchange your phone with one that looks like new. That way, the consumers think that they have a brand new phone, and Apple can centralize the repairing facilities, for example that Europe has one in Eindhoven (NL), US has one, and so forth. But this is not just good, and major issues goes hand in hand in this way of doing this:
I think that my experiences are a very good example in this case. I got 12 iphone 6 replaced over a course of 8 months untill Apple gave me my money back. In the beginning, i just thought that i was unlucky, but it is mainly because the QA is extremely bad, as well as the issue with this process. By getting a phone where the inside is old, you are extremly prone to errors and defects. Because the just reassemble it from old parts, that might have a water damage, or just are old.
So take this example. You buy a car, and after a month, driving 4000 km in it, it breaks down. Good news - you get a brand new car, but with a a mileage of 50.000 km. The salesperson tells you "it's a new car, look, there are no dent's in it", but everything in it is between a year and two old. You would never accept that.
So this is what happens with your iphone. I bought a brand new iPhone 6s. After a day, the haptic engine didn't work anymore. I got a refurb, but that refurb was maybe 2-3 months old. This went on 6 times (yes), and it only "stopped" because i DEMANDED a brand new phone which i got.
Now we have stated how repairs work. Now let's take a look at the danish consumer law.
In Denmark, for up to two years after you buy a product, you are entitled to free repairs if it breaks due to normal use. So if it one days stops working, and you've been using it as you would use the product normally, the seller has to give you a repair. If that same error happens a second or third time, you are entitle to receive a new product or the money back. THIS IS THE LAW! and everyone else have been following this for as long as i remember, just not Apple.
As much as i love apple products, i cannot stress enough how important it is that everyone follow the same rules, no matter who you are. This is a cornerstone in our society. Just because you are a big company, you are not above the law. In this case, any other than following the law would actually give you a better positions towards other companies. This would be unfair competition, and would be against the Lisbonn treaty.
As far as this case goes: David (the guy apple tried to sue) tried to get his money back, back in 2011. Apple refused, and the case went on for a couple of years in the "Forbrugerklagenævnet" (Consumer complaints board). This type of institution is a cornerstone in Danish law, as it avoids us from going to court with Civil case, as this is time and money consuming. The consumer complaints board have representatives from both the industry and the consumers. They ruled that Apple had to pay back 5800 kroners, which is the price of the phone. The board also said that giving refurbished phones as a replacement, was not okay, referring to the danish consumer laws.
I have described the danish system of law in a previous post, as a reference to the next part.
Apple took the case to the court as they are entitled to. In my opinion, this is a very "American" way of doing it - just trying to take it's time, so that the case eventually would not be ruled over, because the guy David sued, did not have enough money, or didn't think it was worth it. In Denmark though, a good lawyer can't do anything if the case is clear. Also, precedence is made if no such case has been ruled over before. This was why Apple made the stupid move, because now where they have lost, precedence has been made.
So what does this ruling mean?
Apple still has several attempts to fix an error in a phone. They could just try to fix the phones, instead of exchanging them for refurbished phones with old hardware. During the 2nd and 3rd attempt, Apple would need to replace it with a brand new phone, or give the consumer the money back. Just like anyone else has done it according to danish law.
So for you guys who say our phones get more expensive: this is a ruling in Denmark only. And if anyone else makes cheaper phones than Apple, and is following the law, why would this change? Apple has a huge profit each year, and is just trying to get as much money as possible to their shareholders.
For you who say it is bad for our environemt: If Apple just repairs their phones as anyone else would, or starts making phones repairable, this issue is totally avoidable. Thus it's their fault. And apple actually salvages the materials from used phones. This is a part of the CSR strategy, and not waste of resources.
And about the ruling: This mainly only has an affect on Denmark.
And lastly - consumer laws are here to protect you. For you who are so naive to think that Apple only makes products to satisfy their customers, you are wrong. Apple's main purpose is to give money to their shareholders. If that means cutting costs everywhere, they would do it!
