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

[JayLenochiniMac]

I have at times found myself with a defective when new or nearly new product and in those situations, when a repair is offered, I pushed hard for a replacement with new. I cant (and I doubt any of us can) speak to the specifics of how the judgment in that case was arrived at. but as much as possible, when I pay for something and the manufacturer fails to deliver their end of the transaction, I want more than just gesture in return. Id rather not have to accept some lowest bidder contract repair person mucking around in my several hundred dollar purchase with two months left on the warranty.

Well, if they make it a policy such as in the OP, you as the customer will pay more for it in the end.

I'll keep it the way it is and continue to receive remanufactured units that can't be discriminated from brand new, and not pay more for it.
[doublepost=1468365391][/doublepost]

we will all insist on calling them refurbs as that is what Apple calls them,
http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac
View attachment 639996

False. They do not sell refurb iPhones at all. You can check this yourself as there's none at the site you linked.

 

[thats all folks]

Well, if they make it a policy such as in the OP, you as the customer will pay more for it in the end.

I'll keep it the way it is and continue to receive remanufactured units that can't be discriminated from brand new, and not pay more for it.

um, are you now back to only Apple products or

Well, if they make it a policy such as in the OP, you as the customer will pay more for it in the end.

I'll keep it the way it is and continue to receive remanufactured units that can't be discriminated from brand new, and not pay more for it.
[doublepost=1468365391][/doublepost]

False. They do not sell refurb iPhones at all. You can check this yourself as there's none at the site you linked.

I'm here to have a discussion that involves the overall context of the thread, not play focus shifting word games that ultimately contribute nothing. so, you have fun with that.

 

[CarlJ]

I have at times found myself with a defective when new or nearly new product and in those situations, when a repair is offered, I pushed hard for a replacement with new. I cant (and I doubt any of us can) speak to the specifics of how the judgment in that case was arrived at. but as much as possible, when I pay for something and the manufacturer fails to deliver their end of the transaction, I want more than just gesture in return. Id rather not have to accept some lowest bidder contract repair person mucking around in my several hundred dollar purchase with two months left on the warranty.

Except we aren't discussing a "new or nearly new product" here, the article states it was nine months old. And Apple is known for handling its repairs in-house, so why the mention of "lowest bidder contract repair person"? It sure helps make your story sound better, but is not applicable to the case at hand.

 

[Gasu E.]

That's extremely incorrect. But nice try.

Why would it be incorrect? Electronic components, if they fail at all, tend to fail early in their lifetimes. As long as Apple is providing new batteries and the few other components that do actually wear out, a refurb should actually be better.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

they actually are allowed, that is why I posted the article. the USDA has approved the "heat to 165 degrees" labeling. that action is supposed to kill all the pathogens the food ships with. an unreasonable expectation as 165 is a lot hotter than necessary to bring your average frozen dinner to eatable temps and difficult to do evenly through the whole item.

so basically, Con Agra, Hormel, Swanson... are allowed to sell contaminated processed foods because they ship with instructions for dealing with the contamination.

Imagine if the sign in the bathrooms at restaurants was, "Employees are unlikely to keep their hands clean so please be prepared to decontaminate any items you purchase from us." That is effectively what you have in the frozen food aisle.

You just wait and see. The FDA will go after them with a huge fine. They're pretty nanny.
[doublepost=1468365900][/doublepost]

um, are you now back to only Apple products or

I'm here to have a discussion that involves the overall context of the thread, not play focus shifting word games that ultimately contribute nothing. so, you have fun with that.

You and others are the ones making it a pissing contest: McDonald's too hot coffee, contaminated food, and other screw ups in the US.

 

[philipo_rock]

Well, they're not even refurbs. Remanufactured units are a totally different animal than refurbs, and the distractors here are insisting on calling them refurbs.
[doublepost=1468364865][/doublepost]

Irrelevant. They've screwed up unlocking brand new units too.

Alright - there's no need to be snippy...this isn't Apple Insider, you know!

 

[thats all folks]

Except we aren't discussing a "new or nearly new product" here, the article states it was nine months old. And Apple is known for handling its repairs in-house, so why the mention of "lowest bidder contract repair person"? It sure helps make your story sound better, but is not applicable to the case at hand.

It is applicable to the question I was asked (about purchases generally and warranty fulfillment) and to an overall issue working it's way through this thread, that of consumer protection laws.
[doublepost=1468366214][/doublepost]

You just wait and see. The FDA will go after them with a huge fine. They're pretty nanny.

It's been over 7 years so far. how much longer should we wait?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

It's been over 7 years so far. how much longer should we wait?

You mean people have been dying for 7 years in a row? Where's the rest of the story?

 

[macfacts]

So, she used the phone for 9 months, and then it broke. Her used iPhone broke. How do either she or the court justify the idea that she should be entitled to a shiny new one as a replacement for what was a nine-month-old iPhone? A refurb should be no worse than her previous phone (prior to it breaking).

1. The laws where she lives says she is entitled to a new replacement under warranty. If Apple wants to do business in that county, they have to follow the laws. Doesn't matter if you think it is fair or not. If you are a shareholder, complain to Tim. Tell him to not do business there or raise prices

2. She did not smash her screen or do anything to break it (that Macrumors picture is click bait)
[doublepost=1468367811][/doublepost]

It's too bad the article doesn't state on what grounds the court found that the terms of service that the woman indirectly agreed to by activating her iPhone were not binding in this case. I'm curious what the judge found that made him/her feel the woman deserved a new iPhone?

The Google translation reads like bad English but it says the laws there say replacements under warranty have to be new, it was a law that came from a case there that had to do with farming equipment. Since Apple didn't want to replace it with a new one, she got a refund.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

1. The laws where she lives says she is entitled to a new replacement under warranty. If Apple wants to do business in that county, they have to follow the laws. Doesn't matter if you think it is fair or not. If you are a shareholder, complain to Tim. Tell him to not do business there or raise prices

Yep, people living in those nanny state countries can look forward to Apple jacking up the prices, and don't complain when they do it. Can't eat your cake and have it too.

 

[thats all folks]

You mean people have been dying for 7 years in a row? Where's the rest of the story?

the story is in the article I linked to and the posts I've made here. It's a complicated issue that has to do with the ever expanding and lengthening food supply chain. that a single frozen dinner could contain ingredients from dozens of countries. that a single ingredient may combine bits from a global pool of dead animals and have had several processing steps that occurred at far flung locations. that even finished products may be handled poorly, in the name of logistics, on their way to your store. that industry lobbying has implanted the belief that low cost, even at the expense of safety and nutrition, is better for poor people.

go to the frozen food section and pick an item meant to be heated. the instructions will tell you to heat to 165 degrees, for food safety. that showed up in 2008/2009. historically, frozen food was safe to eat as-is from the package. that stopped being true. the Federally agreed upon solution, make the consumer responsible.

 

[tagsaid]

That's extremely incorrect. But nice try.

Since that is "Extremely Incorrect", I dare you Prove him wrong, with fact not personal opinions... explain with clear examples and proof shown from Apple or any other professional source, that he is "extremely incorrect". ;-)

 

[iMacC2D]

Removed.

 

[iGeek2014]

I know in the first six months' under UK Consumer Law the seller has to offer a replacement or refund and after that the onus is on the consumer to prove it's defective.

I read on Money Saving Expert someone who had their iPhone replaced last September was having issues again and that Apple said they'd have to pay for a replacement.

I honestly thought the warranty would reset on receiving the refurbished handset but apparently it dates back to the original transaction!

 

[rmatthewware]

I just hope the Netherlanders don't complain that their phone is more expensive than phones in the US.

 

[Westside guy]

FYI When a device breaks down (In the Netherlands) within 2 years and the manufacturer/seller can't repair the device the manufacturer/seller must provide a new device by law, not a refurb one.

If that's the law in the Netherlands than Apple needs to honor it - simple as that.

But when it comes to buying "new" devices... I haven't purchased a non-refurbished Apple product in quite a few years. They seem good as new; have the same warranty (and AppleCare eligibility); and save you some dough.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I just hope the Netherlanders don't complain that their phone is more expensive than phones in the US.

Of course they will complain. They think their nanny state is offering them superior customer protection, but it's actually making it more expensive. Manufacturers pass all costs to the customers.

 

[thats all folks]

Of course they will complain. They think their nanny state is offering them superior customer protection, but it's actually making it more expensive. Manufacturers pass all costs to the customers.

you know that for a fact?

 

[John Mcgregor]

Idiots. Refurbs are cosmetically just as good as new ones and components have been more tested than the ones in new phones. I don't see what the problems is here at all. Other than lack of reason and common sense.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

you know that for a fact?

Which part? Everyone knows manufacturers pass all costs to customers. We hear members complain how Apple products are more expensive outside the US all the time.

 

[thats all folks]

Which part? Everyone knows manufacturers pass all costs to customers. We hear members complain how Apple products are more expensive outside the US all the time.

you would get points for being cute, if you were actually cute. but you know what I meant and you continue to choose confrontation over conversation. best of luck to you.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

you would get points for being cute, if you were actually cute. but you know what I meant and you continue to choose confrontation over conversation. best of luck to you.

I actually don't. You're suggesting they're happy to pay more for brand new, when remanufactured units are indistinguishable and just as good?

 

[AndyUnderscoreR]

Idiots. Refurbs are cosmetically just as good as new ones and components have been more tested than the ones in new phones. I don't see what the problems is here at all. Other than lack of reason and common sense.

Maybe if you thought about it for a few minutes rather than calling an entire nation idiots, you might be able to work out that the law doesn't just apply to Apple? Apple refurbs might be just as good as new but that doesn't mean every single company that sells things in that country has good refurbs all the time. The law is there to protect people from the worst businesses, not the best.

 

[iMacC2D]

Removed.

 

[gabo864]

Little do they realize that Apple refurbs are generally better than new...

I wouldn't say it's better than new. I definitely believe their refurbished devices are really good quality. I would never take a refurbished iPhone from Verizon, At&t, or any other company, but Apple.