No doubt. But the point is he’d very likely expect some kind of concession or reject them entirely.
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 Rules Apple May Not Use 'Remanufactured' iPads for Warranty Replacements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except that is not what apple does. They offered a "new" device and went out of their way to infer that it was new and not new to me. That isn't ok. I even asked if it was new and the guy straight up lied to me saying it's new just in an oem box...
No. they should be replaced with part that are new, or………used by you. As they have no ‘used by you' parts in stock, the only other alternative is new.
well she bought a new product with warranty so she is entitled to a new replacement.simple as that.
and your comment about she wouldn't notice new vs refurbished is simply anti consumer and things you hear ftom bully greedy retailers only.
the environmental argument is irrelevant here.
That’s fine. Apple have a choice to make. Get more NEW stock in the form of spare parts or devices or have their customer service record slide.
[doublepost=1493136115][/doublepost]
Was kind of a sleazy lawyer answer wasn’t it. Learned that from watching Apple Keynotes.
Interesting perspective, but why should they only be used by you or new? Are you taking tradeoffs into account?
"So sorry your device broke Mr Customer; you have the choice of what you want to do. We can send it out for repair which takes about two to four weeks, or you can walk out with a functioning device right now—but it's remanufactured. Both come with the remaining portion of your existing warranty. Your choice."
If I were Cook facing this ruling this is what I'd do. It keeps thing efficient and doesn't add much to the bottom line.
Refurbs replaced with refurbs.
New replaced with new.
If refurbs are not substandard in some way, then try to sell them for retail.
Apple should get their costs back from the builder, not their consumer!
New replaced with new.
If refurbs are not substandard in some way, then try to sell them for retail.
Apple should get their costs back from the builder, not their consumer!
Completely false, unless Dutch law forbids repairs. What she's entitled to is her device being repaired, period. Anything above that is a courtesy. She's only "entitled to a new replacement" if Apple chooses not to repair, or can't repair, the existing one.
It doesn't matter about perception. When I go to sell the iPad later on, it significantly hurts the resale value to list it as refurbished.
If I buy a car and it turns out to be a lemon, they don't replace it with a used car.
It was the kind of response I think Tim/Phil/Steve would have come out with. If units are replaced with new, everybody probably gets the same quality of unit.
If however they release a real Mac pro this time with quality standard graphics cards, I’ll forgive them almost anything.
You're begging the question.
Why is she entitled to a new replacement? That's not what the warranty policy stated (see the similar case citied by Macrumors: "The victory nullified the purchase agreement that the woman made with Apple.").
So the warranty policy says Apple may provide a refurbished product, and the woman agreed to these terms by purchasing the product, and the court scraps that agreement.
Well considering the law was on her side, that would suggest to me that their law is different to yours... their are MUCH better consumer laws outside of America and Canada in several country's, particularly European ones.
It shouldn't suggest that to you; you're making up information that simply isn't given. The ruling, as given here, doesn't speak to repairs. It only encompasses that the customer's broken device is replaced with a new one iff a replacement is offered by the warrantor.
As the summary states, these aren't "refurbished"; they're "remanufactured." It is unclear exactly what the difference is except that they state the former "ensures their quality is ready for the market" (and they are available for purchase with generally favorable opinions from those who buy them), whereas the latter is more rigorous and "requires a level of specifications to be met that are as high-standard as they were for the original product" (and aren't really available for purchase). Honestly, that's what I already thought refurbished Apple products were like, but I guess they make a distinction.
If only you hadn't jumped the conclusion Macrumors is any good at translation.
Apple has to pay 100,- for every day they don't comply with the court order.
[doublepost=1493139156][/doublepost]
You get 2 years of full warranty anyways. It's what you pay for at the get go. You don't get a new full warranty when your device is replaced, just the remaining warranty.
No will not work. By Dutch law you have the right to a fully functioning product. If it breaks within 6 months without it being your fault you have the right to cancel the sale and get your money back. Then you could buy the same product new.
This is not an acceptable fault after a year that can be repaired because the sale can't be canceled anymore. Hence the right to a new product according to the court.
Wanting a new product instead of a remanned doesn't increase e-waste. The returned product can enter the product life cycle just like the reman that Apple wanted to give the customer. Getting a reman doesn't retroactively reduce Apple's production of new products nor it's use of raw material (which is the goal, btw). The new iPad the customer receives is already made. Besides, the remans can be given to customers outside of the Netherlands. It's not like they'd be sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
No she wasn't right. She was unscrupulous and you were naive. That had to be a seriously cut rate insurance company praying on your lack of knowledge. No reputable insurance company would suggest used parts as a replacement. The liability alone would not be worth the risk. Insurance companies would total out a car before risking a repair with used parts. Maybe you meant OEM parts vs aftermarket parts, at least I hope so. Aftermarket parts aren't used.
If you buy a Samsung laptop and it breaks after 2 months, guess what what they do... YUP they replace it with a new one. This has always been the case over here.
