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
And then people wonder why a product is so much more expensive in their country than in the U.S.
GOOD! If I buy a phone and its under warranty, and the phone stops working because of a defect not of my doing, I would EXPECT to get a brand new phone, not a refurbished phone. This will also let Apple have a better selection of refurb phones on their website. Everyone wins.
Because people from Denmark are reading Macrumors as well
we like to think we're the only country that matters here in the US, wish it was elsewise
I thought that a refurb could also be something as simple as a return because you aren't allowed to sell returned items as new.
Happens a lot. If the product under warranty is NOT produced any longer, you replace it with a comparable, existing product. Simple. Warranties have meaning.
Having purchased many, I can confidently say that Apple refurbished devices are as good as new. I actually agree with Apple's fighting this, as they have a great program. Theirs isn't the same as being compared to a 3rd party vendor refurbishing a device by polishing, painting, or replacing screens with cheap knockoff parts.
Cars to phones are not apples to apples. Might as well say "dog" instead of "car"
That being said, there are plenty of people who probably would take that trade. See, Apple refurbs are tested extensively and include a new battery, screen, body, etc. In fact, I think they only re-use the processor and maybe a couple of other expensive components in a refurb.
So back to your analogy -- would someone take a "refurb'd" car that had been gone over with a fine-tooth comb and only had a used engine in it but the body and interior parts, etc. were all new? Probably.
(P.S. I've had multiple refurb'd Iphones and they've been no worse than the multiple brand new ones that I've had)
I was thinking the same exact thing.
I have purchased many Apple refurbished products, including Macs, iPods, Airports, ATVs, and more. I have always been impressed by the product, and I would never know it was refurbished except in most cases the packaging is different.
That said, if I used the automobile example from above, and was sold a lemon, I wouldn't want it replaced with a used version of the car.
I read it and said 'no their analysis of how civil law systems work is wrong'.
Denmark's not like the USA where a supreme court decision is a primary source of law. In civil law countries, courts are in no way bound by previous decisions.
The article incorrectly interprets how civil law courts work.
Why would you expect that? You bought a new device but the moment you start using it, it becomes used. The only expectation Apple has by law is to provide you with parts that meet or exceed the functionality of the ones that failed. Its unreasonable to place the additional burden of "never used" at this volume.
Do you have evidence that they are so different? If a car company could demonstrate that a replacement refurbished part was indistinguishable from a new part, then in theory, what difference would it make?
I did not know that car companies use refurb parts for warranty repairs...indeed, I wonder how many people do know this.
My biggest issue is, how do you know the refurb phone was not previously used extensively to game, or placed it in hot (or cold, or humid) environments during use? Your refurb may function "as good as new" on day one...but perhaps it has been stressed, and has a shorter life as a result compared to a newly manufactured product. To me the biggest concern in this aspect is the GPU and the battery...
After reviewing the linked case file, it looks like this case is in relation to a replacement that happened in 2012, so warranty coverage on an iPhone 4 makes sense.
To everyone defending Apple on this, the customer bought a new iPhone, not a refurbished one. When the phone turned out to be defective within the warranty period, he expected the same product he originally had bought. It is not about whether reforms are as good as new or whatnot. It's about getting what you buy. If I buy a refurb, I don't expect a new device if I get it replaced. If I buy a new one, I do though. The man they talk about here said on Danish television that it's a matter of principal, and he does indeed believe the phone to be as good as a new one, but the package was opened, and it had minor scratching on the back - not something he would normally care about as he uses a case, but he had bought a new phone, so it was his legal right to get a replacement that was new as well
I take your point. And in many ways I agree with the practice of Apple, but I also find it a little uncomfortable....like they are taking the customer for a ride.
Do they always put a new battery in? That is certainly the biggest concern I think.
No, it doesn't have the potential to set precedence, because in many countries there is no such thing as "precedence" in court cases. And this could backfire for the customer: Instead of replacing your phone, which you bought when it was new but which isn't new anymore, with a refurbished phone that is quite likely to have newer parts than you old phone, Apple will just try a lot harder to repair your phone.
And there is Apple's "out of warranty repair" which consists of you handing over your old phone, and getting a fresh refurbished one. If you insist on getting a new phone, then "out of warranty repair" will be scraped.
For example if you have an iPhone 6s+ that you broke out of warranty (your fault), your choices are now: Pay for repair whatever it costs and have a repaired phone. Pay £306 for "out of warranty repair" and get an identical but refurbished phone. Pay £599 or £699 depending on memory size and have a new phone.
Obviously not in Denmark. Case isn't settled, but we shall see. But if it's upheld I will cheer.
But your phone isn't brand new. It might be almost 12 months old. In Europe, if it is replaced due to your statutory rights, it might be two years old or even older.
Usually it's more expensive because people forget that US prices are quoted without sales tax :-( But you're right of course, statutory rights and rulings like this one don't come for free.
Perhaps Americans will stop being corporate sheep and demand the same kinds of protections as consumers?
This is a ridiculous law, not just from Apple's standpoint. To argue that a replacement has less value is just wrong. I've sold iPhones outright, where what I was selling was a replacement from Apple, and it's not even been a question that was asked of the iPhone. The fact that Apple replaces the wear items on any warranty replacement iPhone, means you're getting a better case, screen and battery than what you likely turned in. Who cares of the cell radios were used, as long as they're performing to spec, which Apple guarantees anyway, who cares - enough to start a lawsuit?
Well, it doesn't have to originate from the u.s to be news!
Some beat me to it - above.
The Danish ruling is a good decision, IMO. +1
The other option is to give the user a loaner, take his / her phone in for repairs, then give it back. In that case, they would have a used phone (Their original phone in this case) with some new components. It all depends on local laws, but it would be legal in most countries to do this, likely costing the customer more time.
I have had carrier extended warranties in the past, dealing with shipping a phone out, using a loaner, then reverse the process, is a pain in the neck. The Refurbished replacement is actually a nice service (IMO).
If he indeed received a refurbished device with blemishes, then he should be made whole by receiving a proper replacement.
Not if the increased cost of servicing devices drives down margins, Apple could (rightfully) increase prices to compensate.