Dutch Court Orders Apple to Replace Customer's Broken iPhone With New, Not Refurbished, Model

[JayLenochiniMac]

Repairing was not an option. The ruling states that Apple agreed that the phone was irreparable.

Normally this meant that they owed her a new phone. But Apple had refused to give her one, offering a refurb instead.

So she exercised her right to terminate the purchase contract on her side, claiming that Apple then owed her the €799.00 she had originally paid for a good phone with a year's warranty.

At that point, Apple's lawyers helped to screw themselves. They stated that paying her back, would give the customer €799.00 while Apple got a "worthless" phone in return.

Oops. By stating that the phone was "worthless", they effectively agreed that Apple had violated its promise to provide a good phone for a year. So the court ruled in her favor and said that she was owed the €799.00 plus court costs.

--

Now, what I don't see in the ruling, is an order that they had to give her a new phone, as the thread headline states. Since she had already terminated the contract, Apple no longer had a option to do so, even if they wished.

That repairing was not an option is besides the point. You're also missing the big picture here. Apple provides white box replacements on the spot in lieu of repairs, which happens with nearly every other manufacturers out there with other products, out of convenience to the customer. Additionally, the customer has the additional benefit of getting back a like-new iPhone instead of repaired iPhone that may be scratched up, etc.

Let's not get into the technicality of a lawyer's arguments. There's no such thing as an irreparable iPhone. All these "irreparable" iPhones exchanged under warranty got refurbished just fine.

The woman in this lawsuit was just playing hardball and won because the judge interpreted the law in black and white. But it'll come at a price, whether it's in the form of Apple stopping offering white box replacements on the spot and forcing customers to send their iPhones to the depot like they currently do with the Apple Watch (as you should already know as an AW owner), or they jack up the retail prices to cover the increased cost of offering brand new devices as white box replacements.

 

[kdarling]

Let's not get into the technicality of a lawyer's arguments. There's no such thing as an irreparable iPhone. All these "irreparable" iPhones exchanged under warranty got refurbished just fine.

There's no way that "all" phones turned in get refurbished. First off, Apple doesn't replace or repair circuit boards. They only take devices with good guts and surround them with a new battery and case. Maybe they swap in a better looking used display, maybe not.

Circuit boards with water or pee damage, or broken traces or pins, are not rebuilt... although some of their host's body parts might get cleaned and reused for another phone.

That repairing was not an option is besides the point. You're also missing the big picture here. Apple provides white box replacements on the spot in lieu of repairs, which happens with nearly every other manufacturers out there with other products, out of convenience to the customer. Additionally, the customer has the additional benefit of getting back a like-new iPhone instead of repaired iPhone that may be scratched up, etc.

I hear what you're saying, but to repeat: Apple agreed it was irreparable. So no sir, they weren't offering a refurb as repair.

Instead, by law they had to supply her with a replacement unit, so Apple tried to give her a refurb, which she refused.

==> THIS PRODUCT REPLACEMENT CHOICE is what the trial was about. NOT repairs. <==

To decide whether or not a refurb was okay for that purpose, the court referred back to a 2008 EU ruling (which I looked up here) that specifically stated:

"If a seller delivers goods which are not in conformity, it fails correctly to perform the obligation which it accepted in the contract of sale and must therefore bear the consequences of that faulty performance. By receiving new goods to replace the goods not in conformity, the consumer – who, for his part, paid the selling price and therefore correctly performed his contractual obligation – is not unjustly enriched. He merely receives, belatedly, goods in conformity with the specifications of the contract, which he should have received at the outset."

In short, her demand for a new phone was judged reasonable.

The woman in this lawsuit was just playing hardball and won because the judge interpreted the law in black and white. But it'll come at a price, whether it's in the form of Apple stopping offering white box replacements on the spot and forcing customers to send their iPhones to the depot like they currently do with the Apple Watch (as you should already know as an AW owner), or they jack up the retail prices to cover the increased cost of offering brand new devices as white box replacements.

Again, EU law states that funding repairs OR replacements CANNOT COME AT AN INCREASED PRICE. You can bet Apple will be under scrutiny for any such attempt.

The "price" instead might be for Apple to do better factory testing, in order to justify their higher prices.

Apple's only other legal option is to claim that supplying a new phone would be a burden, but that would mean having to give back the entire purchase price, as happened in this case.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

There's no way that "all" phones turned in get refurbished. First off, Apple doesn't replace or repair circuit boards. They only take devices with good guts and surround them with a new battery and case. Maybe they swap in a better looking used display, maybe not.

Circuit boards with water or pee damage, or broken traces or pins, are not rebuilt... although some of their host's body parts might get cleaned and reused for another phone.



I hear what you're saying, but to repeat: Apple agreed it was irreparable. So no sir, they weren't offering a refurb as repair.

Instead, by law they had to supply her with a replacement unit, so Apple tried to give her a refurb, which she refused.

==> THIS PRODUCT REPLACEMENT CHOICE is what the trial was about. NOT repairs. <==

To decide whether or not a refurb was okay for that purpose, the court referred back to a 2008 EU ruling (which I looked up here) that specifically stated:

"If a seller delivers goods which are not in conformity, it fails correctly to perform the obligation which it accepted in the contract of sale and must therefore bear the consequences of that faulty performance. By receiving new goods to replace the goods not in conformity, the consumer – who, for his part, paid the selling price and therefore correctly performed his contractual obligation – is not unjustly enriched. He merely receives, belatedly, goods in conformity with the specifications of the contract, which he should have received at the outset."

In short, her demand for a new phone was judged reasonable.



Again, EU law states that funding repairs OR replacements CANNOT COME AT AN INCREASED PRICE. You can bet Apple will be under scrutiny for any such attempt.

The "price" instead might be for Apple to do better factory testing, in order to justify their higher prices.

Apple's only other legal option is to claim that supplying a new phone would be a burden, but that would mean having to give back the entire purchase price, as happened in this case.

Again, you're missing the big picture once again. No regulatory body can dictate what retail prices Apple must sell their products so they can very easily increase them silently (perhaps with the next iPhone release). It's too bad that you're so blind to the ramifications that you're unable to see the big picture.

 

[kd5jos]

In the USA perhaps but in The Netherlands and the EU there is a different meaning to "refurbishment" which is the main reason why there has to be such a law as this. Law making is about looking at everybody, not by looking at 1 manufacturer. This is also the reason why there are hardly any online stores with refurbished items.

So... facts are facts here in the U.S., but are redefined in the EU? The fact is that the difference between refurbishment and new is all perception regardless of where you are. Making a law that pretends otherwise doesn't change the fact, it changes the interpretation of opinion. The hardware is digital, it can be mathematically demonstrated to be the same.

Again, the only difference is the absurdity of opinion (that is contrary to fact) made law.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

So... facts are facts here in the U.S., but are redefined in the EU? The fact is that the difference between refurbishment and new is all perception regardless of where you are. Making a law that pretends otherwise doesn't change the fact, it changes the interpretation of opinion. The hardware is digital, it can be mathematically demonstrated to be the same.

Again, the only difference is the absurdity of opinion (that is contrary to fact) made law.

While I agree with your point, I think the bigger picture is remanufactured iPhone vs. the customer's repaired, used iPhone (rather than remanufactured vs. new). Providing remanufactured iPhones as white box replacements is simply Apple's version of "repairing it." However, the law does not recognize this and hence this ruling is rather black and white.

Those of you who think there's no way Apple will ever resort to actually sending customers' iPhones to the depot for the actual repair, think again. They're already doing this for the Apple Watch.

The point is if the Netherlands/Dutch/EU/etc. customers want brand new rather than remanufactured, they'll eventually cover the increased cost for it. Apple products are already more expensive in those countries compared to the US for a myriad of reasons, and no regulatory bodies can set the retail prices Apple must sell their products at so they can very well jack it up silently even more.

 

[dyn]

You are once again missing the big picture. Providing white box replacement to swap out on the spot is simply Apple's method of "repairing it." Apple could have easily followed what other manufacturers do, which is make you send the phone to the depot for the actual repair and you would have to deal with being without it for a while.

You are the one missing the entire picture. These are not my words, they are Apple as you can read in the court ruling. Apple's conclusion after inspecting the iPhone was "not reparable". Apple normally does indeed repair the device when they can and they are allowed to do that. Apple is no miracle worker, some things simply cannot be repaired. A defect in a PCB is a good example of that, especially the multilayered ones (which are very common in electronics nowadays because you can make smaller and thinner electronics).

Yes, it could be repaired if Apple wanted to, but they're simply not equipped for that.

In that case Apple committed a crime by lying to the court because Apple told the court they could not repair this iPhone.

Additionally, customers get back a fresher iPhone with a brand new screen, shell and battery rather than a repaired iPhone that may be full of customer-induced scratches.

Unfortunately not everyone seems to have that experience. On Dutch Apple forums there have been complaints about damaged devices (scratches and such, nothing major).

As a Dutch customer, you obviously think that nothing but good must come out of this law, but you're dead wrong. If Apple is forced to start providing brand new devices as white box replacements, you can most likely look forward to an increase in retail prices. All costs are passed to the customers. That's why it's dangerous to see this law only in black and white and ignore the ramifications that may result from it.

As I said: present proof that prices rise after such a ruling. Again, The Netherlands is not the USA, lawsuits here are individual and do not serve as a one-all ruling. Meaning: if another person in a similar case comes forward they'd have to go to court too.

Others have made the point that this law is intended to protect against lesser manufacturers rather than a company like Apple, and I fully agree with that point. It does have merits in some cases, but here it's a stupid lawsuit and the work of a nanny state.

All those others are Americans who only know capitalism and think a business should be able to do anything.

Now, what I don't see in the ruling, is an order that they had to give her a new phone, as the thread headline states. Since she had already terminated the contract, Apple no longer had a option to do so, even if they wished.

A bit of clarification there: when you buy something there is an agreement (a contract if you will but the correct translation would be "agreement", the correct word in Dutch: "koopovereenkomst"). When one of the parties does not meet the agreement the other party has the right to undo the agreement.

According the court Apple has 2 options: give her a new iPhone of the same model or undo the agreement (and thus refund the 799 euro she paid for the iPhone). The woman undid the agreement and thus Apple had to refund her the 799 euro and she has to return the iPhone (when undoing the agreement there are obligations for all parties; in Dutch: "ongedaanmakingsverplichtingen").

A Dutch court ruling usually comprises of: part where parties state their case, part of explanations/thoughts of the court and lastly the verdict. If you want to know what the court decided you need to check the last chapter (in Dutch: "Beslissing"; which could be translated as "decision" or "verdict").

Again, you're missing the big picture once again. No regulatory body can dictate what retail prices Apple must sell their products so they can very easily increase them silently (perhaps with the next iPhone release).

They can and almost every government that I know of has multiple of such bodies. The USA has shown they have one with the entire eBook case where Apple was even denied to send the person who had to oversee them away.

So... facts are facts here in the U.S., but are redefined in the EU?

Sorry to rain on your parade but the USA is a country of its own just as every other country in the world. Learn to respect other country's sovereignty! Whatever works in the USA does not necessarily work in another country or vice versa.

The fact is that the difference between refurbishment and new is all perception regardless of where you are.

That would be the theory, reality is something completely different. You are forgetting the fact that most companies stay within their own region or country if they are big enough. Those companies can have quite a different meaning than those in other places or countries. Not to mention that politics differ completely. It can even depend on which political parties are in the government.

The hardware is digital, it can be mathematically demonstrated to be the same.

The problem isn't the hardware, the problem is how a company defines what "refurbished" means.

Again, the only difference is the absurdity of opinion (that is contrary to fact) made law.

The only absurdity is you Americans thinking that every other place works the same as the USA and have the same kind of opinions. If you meet people from other cultures you are going to be in for a very big shock. This discussion alone should be a very big hint to you. Different country, different culture, different companies, different experiences. Dutch law is intended for broad use, never for specific cases, people or company/companies.

To give an example: only Americans understand and want their right to carry a gun. Every other part of the world does not understand why you'd want to do that and why people are so vehemently against ditching that rule. They think the right to carry a gun is the absurdest thing there is. Same thing with things like gay marriage, drugs and many other things.

A better example is Germany. They have very strict rules about everything that concerns WWII. Other countries in Europe do not so why that difference? Because Germany still has a lot of nazis among their population. Right wing parties still have quite strong ties with those kind of people and/or sympathise with them. It is a really big problem. To combat it they had to change the law and make certain things illegal (that are still legal in neighbouring countries).

The point is if the Netherlands/Dutch/EU/etc. customers want brand new rather than remanufactured, they'll eventually cover the increased cost for it.

You have completely misunderstood the ruling. It is not about wanting a new device, it is about complying with the law. No more, no less.

Are the Dutch different from the Americans? No, Americans also want Apple to comply with rules (in this case their own rules): Apple Facing Class Action Lawsuit for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare+. The frontpage of MacRumors has far more American lawsuits forcing Apple to comply to certain rules, replacing broken devices, etc. This Dutch case is actually the only non-American case on the frontpage.

...so they can very well jack it up silently even more.

No company can do that silently. The first places where the price increases will be posted are websites like MacRumors. The only thing you need to do is check the current pricing and use the Wayback Machine for old pricing (or a tool such as MacTracker). Since many other places also sell Apple products (most shops in Europe are not Apple's own but they are Premium Resellers) there are other ways of obtaining such information. The government has the right to raid those places as well as Apples European headquarters (albeit we have much stricter rules for that than the USA, here you actually need to obtain a warrant from the court and if you don't then any collected evidence gets thrown out the court and marked as "unusable").

However, that is not Apple's biggest problem. Make the prices too high and nobody buys their products. An issue they know all to well (keyword: India).

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

You are the one missing the entire picture. These are not my words, they are Apple as you can read in the court ruling. Apple's conclusion after inspecting the iPhone was "not reparable". Apple normally does indeed repair the device when they can and they are allowed to do that.

These are very limited, in-store repairs (such as replacing the screen, camera, etc.). Everything else is "irreparable" because Apple isn't equipped for it.

Yes, they can start to refuse to provide white box replacements and make Dutch customers send their broken iPhones to the depot for actual repairs. And yes, they'll be able to jack up the retail prices silently because nobody would be able to prove causal connection.

 

[dyn]

These are very limited, in-store repairs (such as replacing the screen, camera, etc.). Everything else is "irreparable" because Apple isn't equipped for it.

Doesn't matter, irreparable = irreparable. If it is not then they should not say so.

Yes, they can start to refuse to provide white box replacements and make Dutch customers send their broken iPhones to the depot for actual repairs.

Yes they can at the cost of a lawsuit like this one.

And yes, they'll be able to jack up the retail prices silently because nobody would be able to prove causal connection.

Not only do you keep screaming this nonsense you also keep refusing to provide actual evidence. That would be because there isn't any. In fact, your complete lack of knowledge of The Netherlands and the EU prevents it. You are unaware of coming EU regulations for the internal market where sellers have to offer the product/service to ALL EU members with the SAME options and SAME pricing. They can't jack up the prices in The Netherlands because they'd have to jack up the prices EU wide. Apple's online stores (their website, MAS and iTunes) are currently all part of investigation by the EU. That is like trying to steal a computer in a police station whilst police officers are watching you.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Doesn't matter, irreparable = irreparable. If it is not then they should not say so.

Hence the danger of interpreting the law in black and white and ignoring the ramifications.

Not only do you keep screaming this nonsense you also keep refusing to provide actual evidence. That would be because there isn't any. In fact, your complete lack of knowledge of The Netherlands and the EU prevents it. You are unaware of coming EU regulations for the internal market where sellers have to offer the product/service to ALL EU members with the SAME options and SAME pricing. They can't jack up the prices in The Netherlands because they'd have to jack up the prices EU wide. Apple's online stores (their website, MAS and iTunes) are currently all part of investigation by the EU. That is like trying to steal a computer in a police station whilst police officers are watching you.

They will jack up the prices EU wide if that's their only recourse. The whole EU is pretty much nanny.

 

[kdarling]

They will jack up the prices EU wide if that's their only recourse.

Raising prices would backfire with lower sales, and they're already low compared to Android in most countries. It would also come under scrutiny at this point in time.

Their other option would be... as you've noted... to send every unit out for repair, but that would cost Apple way too much, even if it was possible.

Apple makes such a high profit on each device, that it's actually surprising that everyone doesn't demand a new unit within the warranty period. The whole idea is that people are paying extra for something that's better made. If a company isn't delivering the promised quality for the extra price, then the customer should not pay extra for that company's mistake by getting a refurb. At least, that's the EU take on this.

The reaction to all of this depends on whether one favors corporations or consumers. The EU is consumer oriented when it comes to warranties.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

If a company isn't delivering the promised quality for the extra price, then the customer should not pay extra for that company's mistake by getting a refurb. At least, that's the EU take on this.

And a misguided one in this specific case because providing white box replacement on the spot is Apple's alternative to taking the iPhone away from the customer for a week or so in order to repair it. You do know that nearly all manufacturers with all other products force you to ship the product to them for the repair. It isn't a case of refurb vs. new but refurb vs. repair. But the law doesn't recognize this and hence the woman won.

Their other option would be... as you've noted... to send every unit out for repair, but that would cost Apple way too much, even if it was possible.

Apple is currently sending the Apple Watch (of which there are millions of examples so far) to the depot for repairs, as they do with MacBooks, iMacs, etc. So what you're suggesting implies that once the AW sells in iPhone numbers, they'll start providing white box replacements on the spot because it'd be more cost efficient? We'll see about that, but the AW has outsold the original iPhone and they had white box replacements for original iPhone back then.

 

[Shirasaki]

Alright. I don't have good picture of this lawsuit after reading all posts because those posts already confuses me quite a lot and I now have zero idea which side should I stand.

No matter what, everyone involved in this case would and should pay what they have deserved as a result, be either increased product price or lower QA and lower product quality. Being one way or the other.

 

[3247]

This is not correct. The Dutch law as it is, is following every EU regulation and directive there is. You are confusing Dutch consumer law with the Dutch net neutrality law which indeed most likely needs to be changed now that the EU has its own "net neutrality" law. The reason why the Dutch consumer law can deviate from the directive is the fact that it is more beneficial to the consumer as it has a better "warranty" (there is no warranty in reality but a so called "non-conformiteit").

I'm not confusing anything. Please don't assume things out of the blue.

The reason why the Dutch consumer law can deviate from the directive is the fact that it is more beneficial to the consumer as it has a better "warranty" (there is no warranty in reality but a so called "non-conformiteit").

Plain wrong (emphasis mine):

Article 4 - Level of harmonisation

Member States shall not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of consumer protection, unless otherwise provided for in this Directive.​

We Dutch disagree: we are a country but if we keep it by the definition of having 1 government then yes we might be a state. The difficulty here is that as a kingdom we do not have 1 government but multiple ones.

You seem to be very confused about what a state is. There is absolutely no reason why the Kingdom of the Netherlands could not be called a sovereign state.

This is not correct. The European Community is not the old name of the European Union, it is a different body that was eventually absorbed into the EU when the EU Constitution (better known as the treaty of Lisbon) was implemented even though the majority of EU residents voted against it (it was an advisory referendum and unlike the Brits the politicians decided to ignore the outcome; one of the reasons why people are now very against the EU).

All of this is wrong. The European Union was already established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. The EU Constitution (Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) was never implemented. That's not because the majority of EU residents voted against it but because the majority in certain countries (France, Netherlands) voted against the ratification of the treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon was a new, less ambitious proposal, that got ratified.

Read the ruling and you'll see that this is exactly what happened. Dutch law does not have warranty but a so called "non-conformiteit" which is quite different (and the biggest deviation from the EU directive).

Nonsense. The liability for "non-conformity" is exactly the same as the statutory warranty.

Apple's own warranty of 1 year served as the basis to define the "non-conformiteit". Basically: because Apple has a 1 year warranty that means one can expect a phone not to simply stop working within 1 year for no apparent reason (which is exactly what happened in this case; Apple did confirm this).

That is only a shortcut. Even if Apple would not give you a one-year voluntary warranty, you could still expect a phone to last for more than nine month.

Nope, read the ruling. Apple does not refuse to repair it, Apple says it cannot be repaired which is a very big difference. In that case the law states that Apple either has to give a new device or a refund but Apple denies doing both and wants to give a refurbished one. The woman disagrees with this as it is against the law, sues Apple and wins. The issue wasn't the repair, it was whatever she got as replacement.

If you are so fond about reading the ruling, maybe you should also read the second half of the sentence where I wrote "or replace" before replying with "nope". That's more or less what I wrote, save for the mistakes you made:

1. If the device cannot be repaired, the law states that the seller (Apple) has to give a replacement that conforms to the contract. It's not replace or refund.
2. Only if the seller refuses to provide a replacement that conforms to the contract (or if that would not be possible), the customer can rescind the contract and claim a refund.

[doublepost=1469276470][/doublepost]

So... facts are facts here in the U.S., but are redefined in the EU? The fact is that the difference between refurbishment and new is all perception regardless of where you are. Making a law that pretends otherwise doesn't change the fact, it changes the interpretation of opinion. The hardware is digital, it can be mathematically demonstrated to be the same.

It does not matter whether it's all perception. The fact is that refurbished phones sell for a lower price, so there is a difference. The law (or interpretation of the law) cannot just pretend that this difference is not there. Whether this is based on perception or on actual physical differences does not matter.

The problem with refurbished phones is that they may have been subject to more stress (thermal stress, physical abuse, moisture…) than the original one, and that this might not yet show up in commercially reasonable tests but still lower the life expectancy. That's a risk that you don't have with new phones, or when your own phone is repaired.

 

[kd5jos]

Sorry to rain on your parade but the USA is a country of its own just as every other country in the world. Learn to respect other country's sovereignty! Whatever works in the USA does not necessarily work in another country or vice versa.

So facts are determined by sovereignty? No. Sorry to rain on your parade, but this has nothing to do with sovereignty, thanks for that strawman. This is not an issue of what works in the US v.s. what works elsewhere. This is an issue that it is mathematically demonstrable that there is NO difference between a refurbished unit and a "new" unit. It is in fact demanded by digital electronics.

The facts are not debatable, the opinion is, AND, this is based on opinion. The opinion involved has determined that it is better for the population to pay more for devices, because they get "new" devices when they fail. They have decided to pay that price. It's like paying more for "organic." It's silly, naive, and a waste, but the emotion is worth more than common sense in this case.
[doublepost=1469391956][/doublepost]

It does not matter whether it's all perception. The fact is that refurbished phones sell for a lower price, so there is a difference. The law (or interpretation of the law) cannot just pretend that this difference is not there.

No, they are pretending a difference is there that is not. YOU state there is no evidence to support the claim.

Whether this is based on perception or on actual physical differences does not matter.

The problem with refurbished phones is that they may have been subject to more stress (thermal stress, physical abuse, moisture…) than the original one,

A functioning refurbished unit has been through more stress than a non functioning new unit? How stupid do you think I am?

and that this might not yet show up in commercially reasonable tests but still lower the life expectancy.

So you admit you can not provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim. Yet I am supposed to believe this nonsense?

That's a risk that you don't have with new phones, or when your own phone is repaired.

Really? Then how did the new phone end up nonfunctional? Because.... RISK.

Your argument, it leaks like a sieve. I'd tell you to come back with facts, but you have already stated you can't have any. I guess we're done at this point.

 

[kdarling]

So... facts are facts here in the U.S., but are redefined in the EU? The fact is that the difference between refurbishment and new is all perception regardless of where you are.

Actually, repair insurance companies such as Square Trade say this from their experience:



Apparently the failure rate rises from about 6% for new phones, to as high as 20% for used and refurbished (since they're essentially the same thing, with the difference of only a new battery).

This is an issue that it is mathematically demonstrable that there is NO difference between a refurbished unit and a "new" unit. It is in fact demanded by digital electronics.

On the contrary again, electronic failure rates caused by historical stresses are mathematically demonstrable. There are formulas for such things.

A functioning refurbished unit has been through more stress than a non functioning new unit? How stupid do you think I am?

He's right about the electrical, thermal and physical stresses.

 

[kd5jos]

Actually, repair insurance companies such as Square Trade say this from their experience:

View attachment 641793

And they have absolutely no interest in providing evidence that would be misleading. Are you familiar with conflict of interest?

Apparently the failure rate rises from about 6% for new phones, to as high as 20% for used and refurbished (since they're essentially the same thing, with the difference of only a new battery).

For used AND refurbished, that does NOT give me a value for refurbished.

On the contrary again, electronic failure rates caused by historical stresses are mathematically demonstrable. There are formulas for such thing

So I've heard, when will I see?

He's right about the electrical, thermal and physical stresses.

So I have two devices, the one on the left is a "refurbished device." You claim it has been through more electrical, thermal, and physical stresses AND it's functional. On the right is the "new" device that is being turned in because it has failed under less thermal stress, electrical stress and physical stress based on what you have said. Using your argument (not that I believe it).....

YOU WANT ANOTHER 'NEW" ONE?

Really?

This makes sense HOW?!?!?!?

 

[kdarling]

For used AND refurbished, that does NOT give me a value for refurbished.

"Refurbished" in the case of an iPhone electrically simply means a new battery. The rest of the electronics are previously used parts.

So I've heard, when will I see?

If you don't know the topic, don't ask others to do your learning for you. At the least, Google "electronics failure rate."

So I have two devices, the one on the left is a "refurbished device." You claim it has been through more electrical, thermal, and physical stresses AND it's functional. On the right is the "new" device that is being turned in ...

Not sure why you're talking about turning in anything.

The thread is about whether it's better to be given a brand new device with only a small chance of failure in the first few weeks, or a used/refurbished device which could've already risen to two or three times the risk.

 

[kd5jos]

"Refurbished" in the case of an iPhone electrically simply means a new battery. The rest of the electronics are previously used parts.

But that's not what it means to Apple AND it matters. Why? Because by definition your claim is false. First, the phone that is a refurb was new at one point. Then something happened and it was sent back to Apple. Apple had to repair the phone. That means a new part OTHER than a battery was installed. By definition, it does not qualify for what you describe. Also phones get new displays. These wouldn't qualify for your definition. ALSO, there are defective units that are produced that are reworked and called "refurb."

I've shown multiple ways you are wrong, I think we're done here.

 

[dyn]

Hence the danger of interpreting the law in black and white and ignoring the ramifications.

Which is why Dutch judges always ask repeatedly and in-depth to find out the exact details. If they don't the other party can avenge the judge (a procedure to replace the judge because a party finds that the judge in question no longer is able to do his work properly and/or objectively).

They will jack up the prices EU wide if that's their only recourse. The whole EU is pretty much nanny.

The fact that you still don't step forward with any proof speaks volumes.

No matter what, everyone involved in this case would and should pay what they have deserved as a result, be either increased product price or lower QA and lower product quality. Being one way or the other.

Where do you base this on? We are talking about a law that has been in effect for more than a decade and a successor to an old law which already stated something similar.

Plain wrong (emphasis mine):

Article 4 - Level of harmonisation

Member States shall not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of consumer protection, unless otherwise provided for in this Directive.​

You missed the bold lettering. Again, this isn't a new law, it has been in effect for over a decade and is a successor to a law that stated very much the same. The EU has checked and approved the Dutch variant of the EU directive. There are also certain rules about implementing any EU directive into local law which you are forgetting about.

You seem to be very confused about what a state is. There is absolutely no reason why the Kingdom of the Netherlands could not be called a sovereign state.

You do not read what it says and are putting words into someones mouth. Re-read the post and maybe you'll understand.

All of this is wrong. The European Union was already established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. The EU Constitution (Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) was never implemented. That's not because the majority of EU residents voted against it but because the majority in certain countries (France, Netherlands) voted against the ratification of the treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon was a new, less ambitious proposal, that got ratified.

I never said the EU didn't exist before that and you are missing quite a lot of information about what the people have named "the EU constitution". They played some nasty tricks with this treaty such as ignoring the votes of the people as well as putting it up for vote on insignificant meetings between insignificant other stuff. (something they did about 3 times and the 3rd time it was passed).

Nonsense. The liability for "non-conformity" is exactly the same as the statutory warranty.
That is only a shortcut.

Then you are not understanding the terminology. The difference is in the point of view.

Even if Apple would not give you a one-year voluntary warranty, you could still expect a phone to last for more than nine month.

The fact that Apple gives a warranty of 1 year and even up to 3 year if you pay for it is only one of the indicators for that. If the device can last for 5 years economically and the manufacturer only gives a warranty of 1 year then the "non-conformiteit" says that you can expect it to last 5 years.

If you are so fond about reading the ruling, maybe you should also read the second half of the sentence where I wrote "or replace" before replying with "nope".

Nope, this was about your statement that Apple refused repair. In the ruling you can read that they did not refuse repair but explained they couldn't repair. You are accusing Apple of something they didn't say.

That's more or less what I wrote, save for the mistakes you made:

1. If the device cannot be repaired, the law states that the seller (Apple) has to give a replacement that conforms to the contract. It's not replace or refund.
2. Only if the seller refuses to provide a replacement that conforms to the contract (or if that would not be possible), the customer can rescind the contract and claim a refund.

The reason why it is more or less what you wrote is because your version has mistakes in them as well as this new one:

1. The law does NOT state a replacement has to be given. The law states that when a device is defective they have the option to repair it or give a replacement BUT in case of the device not being able to be repaired (as in this case) they have to give a replacement or allow you to rescind the contract.
2. There is no such thing as rescinding the contract and claiming a refund. You rescind the contract. Period. The rules for rescinding the contract say that the buyer has to return whatever was bought and the seller has to refund whatever was paid for that.

This is an issue that it is mathematically demonstrable that there is NO difference between a refurbished unit and a "new" unit. It is in fact demanded by digital electronics.

I keep asking for these proofs and demonstrations but you people keep on refusing/ignoring them. Since this is a case in The Netherlands it means that your evidence and demonstrations are limited to Dutch ones only.

Btw, the dictionary also has a different meaning than you do. Both Dutch and English...

Anyway, since people are now resulting in personal bashing because they are unable to answer the questions I ask or able to refute things by actual and correct facts, I'll draw the conclusion that this thread has ran its course. Do whatever you want, I can only say that the ruling is very clear and people need to read it.

 

[kdarling]

First, the phone that is a refurb was new at one point. Then something happened and it was sent back to Apple.

Right, at which point it's a (possibly non-working) used phone.

Apple had to repair the phone. That means a new part OTHER than a battery was installed.

There is no evidence that Apple's refurb contractors do anything other than swap in a working used module from another returned phone. Even Apple themselves don't claim that new parts are installed; instead they cleverly only say that they are "genuine Apple" components.

Also phones get new displays.

This oft-repeated claim appears to be yet another nonsensical fanboy myth, mixing up the words "shell" and "display", which are two totally different things. Maybe they replace the glass on some devices; maybe not.

In any case, Apple themselves have never said they replaced the LCD display.

Not to mention that it would make zero economic sense for Apple to always replace the MOST EXPENSIVE part of the phone, even if not needed.

Think! If something doesn't make any sense, it's usually because it's not true.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Which is why Dutch judges always ask repeatedly and in-depth to find out the exact details. If they don't the other party can avenge the judge (a procedure to replace the judge because a party finds that the judge in question no longer is able to do his work properly and/or objectively).

That's irrelevant because it's the judge's job to follow the law. They can ask for details until the cow comes home, but at the end of the day they'll rule in favor of the plaintiff because the law is clear that it must be either repaired or brand new. A judge can't simply say "Well, I can see Apple is providing superior services by swapping out with a remanufactured unit on the spot rather than take the customer's broken unit away for a week or so in order to repair it, so I'll just ignore the law" because, as you pointed out, the other party can avenge the judge for not following the law.

What you and others are ignoring is the potential ramifications of this ruling, if Apple is forced to start providing brand new units instead of remanufactured unit and pass the cost to the customers in the form of higher retail prices, or they can decide to stop providing white box replacements on the spot and start repairing the iPhone a la the Apple Watch.

The fact that you still don't step forward with any proof speaks volumes.

How do you want me to "prove" the possibility that Apple might jack up the retail prices if the aforementioned happens? Most people know that the cost of doing business is more expensive in Europe and other countries relative to the US for a myriad of reasons, which is why Apple products tend to be more expensive over there compared to the US. Are you going to ask me to prove this too? If you're so convinced that Apple can't possibility jack up the retail prices silently lest they get into trouble, keep in mind they've already done that for other reasons as you're already paying more for Apple products relative to us (there hasn't been a ruling by a regulatory body to dictate the retail prices Apple are forced to sell their products, to make them more in line with the US prices).

Anyway, since people are now resulting in personal bashing because they are unable to answer the questions I ask or able to refute things by actual and correct facts, I'll draw the conclusion that this thread has ran its course. Do whatever you want, I can only say that the ruling is very clear and people need to read it.

You're the one who revived this thread from the dead after 4 days (and kdarling bumped this thread just now which reminded me once again). Perhaps that's your guilty conscience hard at work as a result of ignoring the ramifications of this ruling.

 

[3247]

No, they are pretending a difference is there that is not. YOU state there is no evidence to support the claim.

You are missing one crucial point: The difference does not have to be physical or the actually quality of the product. It's enough that there is a perceived difference that results in a lower price.

You missed the bold lettering. Again, this isn't a new law, it has been in effect for over a decade and is a successor to a law that stated very much the same.

No, I didn't; you have to show me the provision in the Directive that states that it allows Member States to make more strict laws in this very respect.

On second thought, don't bother. The fact that you claim that a Directive of 2011 (that became effective in mid-2014) was in "effect for over a decade" shows that you have totally missed that there was a new Directive. One of the big differences is that the new Directive does not allow stricter laws (with few exception).

Prior to mid-2014, what you say would have been right.

The fact that Apple gives a warranty of 1 year and even up to 3 year if you pay for it is only one of the indicators for that. If the device can last for 5 years economically and the manufacturer only gives a warranty of 1 year then the "non-conformiteit" says that you can expect it to last 5 years.

That does not matter if it breaks in the first year. All that matters is that you could expect it to last at least one year. And that's what the course did: It did not determine how long you could normally expect a phone to last. It just established that it's at least one year, and that was easy because Apple themselves expect it to last one year. That's the shortcut.

Had the phone broken after nine months, then showing that an iPhone can be expected to last longer than that would just have been more difficult.

Nope, this was about your statement that Apple refused repair. In the ruling you can read that they did not refuse repair but explained they couldn't repair. You are accusing Apple of something they didn't say.

"[R]efuse to repair or replace" (what I've wrote) is not the same as "refuse to repair" (what you keep misreading, even after I explained it to you).

 

[kd5jos]

You are missing one crucial point: The difference does not have to be physical or the actually quality of the product. It's enough that there is a perceived difference that results in a lower price.

Yes, I said EXACTLY that, it is a PERCEIVED difference, which means emotional decision, which means NOT an economic decision, which means higher price for a PERCEIVED difference.