My logic isn't flawed because I wasn't making any logical point lol i was expressing my own experiences in response to someone making a wild claim that refurbs are worse than new. In my experience they have been better than new.
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.
Dutch Court Orders Apple to Replace Customer's Broken iPhone With New, Not Refurbished, Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My logic isn't flawed because I wasn't making any logical point lol i was expressing my own experiences in response to someone making a wild claim that refurbs are worse than new. In my experience they have been better than new.
Many people buy an item and expect it to work as promised. They buy NEW and not used, refurb or mixed old and new parts. That is what buying "NEW" means. What don't you understand? Performance is not the issue but paying outright for a simple expectation of NEW meaning NEW is what it is all about.
As for your logic about performance, it doesn't matter that an iPhone is composed of new and used/old/openbox whatever parts being equal to or better. Again what don't you understand that people expect NEW when they lay that kind of money out. While I may, and you as well, don't have attachments to their property, many do and you chide them for it.
Which must say something about the quality of factory testing.
--
As for some claims that refurbs are "better", my response is this:
The next time someone, who really believes that, gets a new iPhone, have them give me a call. I'll quite happily go buy a cheaper refurb and trade it for their brand new phone.
I'll be happy because I can resell theirs for a profit, and they'll be happy because they got a "better" device
In real life, the lower price is why people buy refurbs, not because they're "better". They're used units made up of other used units pieced together, along with a couple of new parts. That's mainly why they're cheaper.
--
If I buy a new car, and it fails, I don't expect the dealer to replace it with an already used car, with a swapped in motor, even if it has a new battery, windshield, paint and it's been road tested more. I want another brand new car, not someone else's trade-in of a previously failed unit.
Last edited:
So you demand a brand new fridge rather than allow them to repair it when it breaks down?
Just where do all the refurbished items come from? Demos? A broken on turned in, fixed and resold?
Remanufactured iPhones come from returned iPhones during the 14-day return period as well as broken or defective iPhones swapped out under warranty or AC+. That's why they're able to charge only $99 for AC+ and $299 for out-of-warranty replacement units (rather than the full prices for brand new).
Even if a customer returns a sealed iPhone during the return period, they'll open it and refurbish/remanufacture it anyway. Apple doesn't take a chance.
I second that. I have been witnessing service cases for Apple devices for a few years and am handing out Apple devices to customers daily. I can only say that I have seen about as many DOA cases among refurbished replacement units provided by Apple, as on factory-new ones. It's only that the sales of brand-new ones outnumber the service replacements greatly. AirPort devices have been particularly troublesome, with more DOA refurbisheds than brand-new ones. Though, again, new unit sales outnumber service cases by order of a magnitude. That's only over a small sample size, though.
Also, if anybody asked our Mac service technicians whether MacBook replacement mainboards are up to the same quality standard as on brand-new units, they would just be laughed at to the face.
Were these Black and Slate iPhone 5 by any chance? Remember people were returning factory-damaged iPhone 5 left and right (the ones that came out of the box full of nicks and scratches), and these of course were transferred to a brand new shell untested. So it isn't necessarily true that all remanufactured iPhones have been throughly tested and hence better than new, as some here like to claim.
Even if someone returns a sealed/shrink-wrapped iPhone during the 14-day return period, Apple will open it up and refurbish it with a brand new screen, shell and battery. Any defective components, such as a bum camera, will go undetected.
It depends what the problem is. If the entire unit is faulty I want an exchange or my money back. If it is something like a gasket or easy to repair at my home, I would possibly opt for that. As you recall, I mentioned if they can't fix it (iPhone) then replace it with a new one if it is within warranty time and especially so if it is within 30-90 days.
Oh and I should say if the fridge is repaired I expect NEW parts not used.
But Apple isn't in the business of repairing iPhones other than the very selected and limited in-store repairs. The outcome of this misguided ruling is Apple will pass the increased cost of providing brand new units (rather than remanufactured units that are indistinguishable from brand new) to the Netherlands customers one way or another, most likely in the form of higher retail prices in the near future. Alternatively, they may stop swapping out on the spot and force the Netherlands customers to send their iPhones out to the depot to get it repaired, and these customers will have to deal with being without their iPhones for a week or so, just like we currently do when our Apple Watch croaks.
Be careful what you ask for.
And Apple will be careful not to have inherent problems so as to avoid a class action suit or have a foreign government intervene.
It'd be unprecedented for a government or regulatory body to pass a regulation dictating the retail prices Apple must sell their products, so they can easily jack them up silently.
Anyway, going back to my example. There's no such thing as the entire refrigerator unit being faulty. Large appliances are designed so they can be repaired on-site. That's like saying your new car is so faulty that repair isn't possible.
Not a good analogy. Just about every part on a car is a wear item - meaning it wears with use. The motor, the interior, the suspension, etc. With an Apple refurbed phone all the 'wear' items are new - the battery, the outer case and the glass screen. The innards aren't really wear items, sure they have a MTBF but it isn't quite the same. As stated part failures generally happen early in the life of the device.Which must say something about the quality of factory testing.
--
As for the claim that refurbs are "better", my response is this:
The next time someone gets a new iPhone, give me a call. I'll quite happily go buy a cheaper refurb and trade it for their brand new phone.
I'll be happy because I can resell theirs for a profit, and they'll be happy because they got a "better" device
In real life, the lower price is why people buy refurbs, not because they're "better". They're used units made up of other used units pieced together, along with a couple of new parts. That's mainly why they're cheaper.
--
If I buy a new car, and it fails, I don't expect the dealer to replace it with an already used car, with a swapped in motor, even if it has a new battery, windshield, paint and it's been road tested more. I want another brand new car, not someone else's trade-in of a previously failed unit.
alright. People are too stuck in "NEW" whereas they actually get whatever being defined as "refurbished" based on industry standard.
You know guys, Apple can easily repackage any unit inside a "brand new" iPhone box without you even notice a bit! This is too easy for Apple to just produce a few more empty boxes and continuously persuade you that "we are replacing your faulty units with new units" while in fact they are refurbished one.
My iPhone 6s Plus got a replacement just two days after purchase due to unusual phone heating up whenever I used it. They got me a "brand new" units with full wrapper and all accessories inside. And it worked better than previous faulty unit. I was and still happy with it.
Guys, we should ignore those trivial words and try to get the real stuff at hand and happily use it. Sticking into it too much will cost even more.
(I know this comment is too mediocre but I cannot phrase anywhere better for now)
You know guys, Apple can easily repackage any unit inside a "brand new" iPhone box without you even notice a bit! This is too easy for Apple to just produce a few more empty boxes and continuously persuade you that "we are replacing your faulty units with new units" while in fact they are refurbished one.
My iPhone 6s Plus got a replacement just two days after purchase due to unusual phone heating up whenever I used it. They got me a "brand new" units with full wrapper and all accessories inside. And it worked better than previous faulty unit. I was and still happy with it.
Guys, we should ignore those trivial words and try to get the real stuff at hand and happily use it. Sticking into it too much will cost even more.
(I know this comment is too mediocre but I cannot phrase anywhere better for now)
Did I not say that if it can be repaired (fridge) at my home I would consider it? You picked obviously a poor choice of a purchase item to compare to an all electronic device (iPhone).
I think we will disagree how far governments will go to dictate how Apple sells products. We are discussing on instance now, and we know India also is making some devices by Apple on a no go list etc. My guess is that China at some level in the future will place more restrictions on what and how Apple devices work in their country based on their national politics and security.
The only thing I can say is if you get a faulty phone at full price, you are entitled to a new phone or money back. If your phone breaks down later, Apple should repair it or replace it with a new phone. A fair compromise would be something like this (make up your own numbers if you like) ... 30 day return policy followed by 120 days if cannot be repaired on site, then exchange for new phone and after 120 days Apple may elect to exchange for their refurb with a full warranty. Apple should also perhaps limit the types of reasons for iPhone becoming unusable so that buyers don't abuse their phones and expect a freebee replacement.
Shirasaki - I am unclear as to the point of your comment on a post a couple down from Jay's with respect to what Apple could do. Misrepresenting a product is a big NO in the USA. One cannot take a refurb and call it a factory new product and sell as such. They leave themselves open for a suit that they will lose.
You keep talking about repair but that's not what Apple wanted to do in this case.
Apple offers white box replacements that they swap out on the spot in lieu of sending it out to the depot for repairs and have the customer be without their iPhone for up to a week.
Be careful what you ask for. They might stop doing that and the Netherlands customers may have to start coping without their iPhones when Apple starts to send them to the depot for repairs. Either that or they'll jack up the retail prices to cover the increased cost of providing brand new devices as white box replacements.
So much for living in a nanny state.
Just calling it what it is. From googling:
nan·ny state
noun
- the government regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice.
Don't like the sound of that? Then tell your government not to be such a nanny.
It does not really matter whether refurbished phones might actually be better or more reliable, or at least equivalent; they sell at a discount, so they are worth less.
If you buy a new phone (instead of a used or refurbished one) for the full price, you are entitled to a new phone. You don't just lose the right to get a new phone because the first one they give you turns out defective. The consumer protection here laws simply guarantee that you get what you pay for: a new, non-defective phone.
Yes, you might be over-compensated if you were able to use the phone for a few months before the defect actually shows. Or you may actually be under-compensated if you have to wait a month or so for repairs or exchanges and can't use your phone in the meantime (as long as the times are "reasonable").
That is only part of the truth. Of course, someone has to pay for defective products: It's either the manufacturer (who passes the costs on to the consumer) or the consumer (who pays for a products that is defective). Economically, it makes sense to burden the seller with this risk because they are in a better position to keep the risk and the costs low.
This is also true in Europe: While the consumer can chose between a replacement and a repair, the seller can refuse to replace the product if a repair is more cost-effective.
However, Apple does not repair your phone, they want to replace it with a refurbished/remanufactured one; that's that's not one of the options. (This is a good thing, actually. While Apple refurbs might be "as good as new", there's no easy way to tell, and many vendors would totally abuse this.)
Apple could still offer(!) refurbs as an alternative to repairs, and make this more attractive to the customer by replacing your phone on the spot (instead of repair times of several weeks) or throwing in an iTunes voucher.
(It is a state, a country and a kingdom. All of these terms describe the Netherlands correctly.)
(The European Community was the old name of the European Union. Referring to the EU as "Europe" is imprecise, but often ok.)[/QUOTE]… regulations because they have to as a EU member. That same EU also gives them a certain amount of freedom in what and how to implement those regulations. This has led to a consumer law that at parts is quite different from the EU regulations. This applies to all EU members and thus one should not use EU regulations but use local law instead.[/QUOTE]This is correct, in principle. However, in this case, the national laws have been fully harmonized under the Directive 2011/83/EU, which leaves virtually now wiggle room to EU Member States.
Actually, that cannot be what happened. Statutory warranty only covers defects that are already present at the time you get the phone. The Dutch court could only rule in favour of the customer if it had established that the defect was present (albeit dormant) when she got the phone.
In other words, it went like this: A consumer in the Netherlands buys a new phone from Apple, which is defective. The defect shows within the warranty period. Apple refuses to repair it or give her a replacement that conforms to the contract. She rescinds the contract, sues Apple, and wins. End of story.
But Apple didn't "refuse to repair it." Their offering white box replacement on the spot is their method of "repairing it," and this is superior/preferable because 1) the customer won't be without their iPhone for a week at a time (or longer) while it's in the depot getting repaired and 2) they get a fresher unit with a brand new screen, shell and battery as opposed to receiving back a repaired phone that may be full of customer-induced scratches, etc.
See, that's why this lawsuit is so stupid in the first place. They could have said, "Due to the specific law in your country, you'll have to send your iPhone out to the depot and be without it for about a week or so to have it repaired, because we're not allowed to replace it with a remanufactured unit on the spot as we do in the US." She'd most likely be begging them to do the latter because the vast majority of customers can't live without their iPhones for even a few hours.
Last edited:
A manufacturer never gives off a certain amount of warranty if they are not able to meet it because that would open up the way for people to sue the crap out of them. It is a very good way of putting yourself out of business. That's what the Dutch law is based upon: if the manufacturer gives a 3 year warranty (doesn't matter if it is by default or you have to buy it) then the product must be able to last for at least that long. If you read the verdict in this case you'll see that Apple agrees to this. So yes, Apple already accounts for it.
Refurbished products are only meant for additional savings on both Apples money as well as the environment (re-use what can be used and only throw away the parts you can't re-use; much better than discarding the entire product). It is a nice gesture but no more than that.
The Netherlands is still not a state and simply increasing prices because you lost 1 lawsuit is not something any company does. More importantly: there is absolutely no proof at all. There have been many companies that have been fined, lost lawsuits, etc. but none of these companies increased any of their prices. One of the reason why no one has increased prices is because of the way our judicial system works. Rulings are for a specific case only and do not apply to everybody. You'd need more cases than that or a ruling of the higher courts before that happens. Just because Apple lost 1 case doesn't mean that there is a precedent.
Apple has been corrected by the EU multiple times and by multiple EU members regarding their interpretation of the EU consumer regulations. Apple changed their policy. Period. No price increase whatsoever. The same when other things were introduced such as the right to return things you ordered online within a certain period without any reason and for free. And again when this was extended to software. When did Apple increase pricing? When the dollar-euro rates changed and when there was a tax rate change in the EU.
Btw, did you know that it was already quite normal for Apple to give out new devices? They suddenly changed it last year or a year before that.
If you disagree then fine but you really need to start showing some evidence that prices will increase. One tip: do stay within Dutch and EU law and markets. The Netherlands and the EU is not the USA.
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.
You misunderstood completely and you are also dead wrong. Refurbishment is allowed, only not within the warranty period. Secondly, this is pro-consumer while refurbishment is pro-business but also pro-environment. Refurbishment is re-use of parts driving costs down for the manufacturer. It is up to the manufacturer to make up the MSRP and in The Netherlands and the EU this unfortunately quite often boils down paying as much for refurbished as you would for new. There is a reason for the existence of this law. Companies ripped consumers off (and still do).
This case however is not about emotions at all. The law says that the consumer should get a refund or a new device and nobody is above the law. This is just simply about following the rules. These rules have been created because companies did mislead consumers.
Ah so you have no idea what "nanny state" means. Read the meaning above again but now carefully. The keyword here is government. These rules are not the result of the government but of the people wanting protection from companies misleading them. They had to bring back the devices multiple times because they were refurbished and they wanted it to stop. The companies couldn't do it so then there is only 1 body left to change this unwanted behaviour: the lawmakers aka the government. This is exactly how a democracy works and that's exactly what The Netherlands and the EU are. And thus this is indeed an unnecessary debate.
That's why The Netherlands sign nearly all the environmental treaties like Kyoto whereas the USA declines to sign nearly all of them. The Netherlands is not in the top lists of polluters. There are strict rules concerning waste in order to save the environment. There is a system where the polluter pays for its own pollution (incl. waste and e-waste). There are also some rules and other work done to not only get companies to recycle but people as well (for consumers there is something called "Wecycle", short for "We recycle").
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.
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).
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").
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). 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).
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.
What people need to understand here is that they are being extremely disrespectful towards another country's sovereignty. Other countries do things differently from the USA and you have to respect it no matter if you like it what they do or not. It greatly helps if you understand the Dutch judicial system as well as read the ruling of the court.
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. Yes, it could be repaired if Apple wanted to, but they're simply not equipped for that. 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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited: