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
Let me try to summarise your point for anyone who zoned out at the wall of text:
At least in countries with strong consumer protection laws, it pays to escalate any issues you have with even minor defects to Apple executive support. You might even score a newer/faster/better device. And if you don't do all these things, you're brainwashed.
It's kind of amazing to me that you insinuate ill will to a company that has repeatedly treated you better than any other consumer goods company out there. If I were Apple, I would politely ask you to never buy another one of my products again. They've undoubtedly lost money on most everything you've bought.
Some can only feel good about a transaction if they get the upper hand. Other people feel good about themselves when both sides get a fair deal and one-sided transactions don't feel right, regardless of the size of the other party. Maybe the latter type are just brainwashed like me.
If I were Apple I'd be apologising for supplying so many defective products to this customer.
One of the great things about Apple is that they do (generally) provide a much better service to their customers than other companies. This is part of the reason that Apple products tend to be more expensive. Of course they sometimes fall short in this regard as all companies do.
I think it's important to note that refurbished products are not remanufactured. Refurbished products have often times been used then returned. This is not the case of remanufactured products which have not been used by anyone else prior.
But as for the reason refurbished products are sold at a discount, it's because people unjustifiably view them as less than a new product. Refurbished products look new, they perform as new, the warranty is the same as new, and if someone told you it was new there would be no way to know otherwise.
But again, Apple is not providing refurbished products as service replacements. They're providing remanufactured products that are functionally identical to a new product. If you don't like that don't buy an Apple product, because they're perfectly within their right to do this per the terms and conditions customers agree to.
Then you misunderstood (or they did or they did not word it correctly).
In The Netherlands we have actually don't have something called "warranty". You won't be able to find that terminology used in any of the laws. Instead the law expects that consumers receive a product that works and does so for its entire estimated lifetime. This goes far beyond the EU regulation this law has to be based upon. In the first 6 months after you've bought the product it is the seller who has to proof that the product you bought isn't broken and still works as it should. After those 6 months it is the exact opposite: the buyer now has to proof that the product is broken/not working as it should (this is more on the level of "reasonable doubt"). That is all this term is about.
Getting a new product that is considered equal only depends on whether the product is repairable or not. If it is repairable then the seller is allowed to have it repaired and you are NOT entitled to a brand new product. If it is irreparable then you can either undo the buying agreement (hand in the product, get money back) or the seller has to give you a new product that is considered equal. This applies to 2, months, 4 months, 6 months, 8 months, 12 months, etc. after you've bought a product.
Actually it isn't about getting a new device but about getting a product as agreed upon. That means that it should work as expected and if it doesn't it should be repaired or, if that is impossible, you should get something that is equal.
What happened here is a woman upholding the agreement both she and the seller agreed to. You'd go to court too if your boss decides to cut your pay because he wants a bigger salary. It is not what you agreed upon and it is not what is in your contract.
To be more exact: we implemented the EU directive because we have to but we didn't implement the warranty part. Instead we kept our own because it gives more protection to the consumer and since that is the objective of this directive we are allowed to do so.
That used to happen but the EU court ruling in the Quelle case states that this is not allowed.
I’m sure you know what the deal is but let me clarify. I'll rephrase. Really I don't care what you, the genius, Tim Cook or the president of the world thinks.
When I buy a product from anywhere I want to know up front whether its new, refurbished or remanufactured. I’ll make my choice accordingly. If they are that good they would be provided with a longer warranty.
So, when you buy your brand new phone are you told at the time of purchase that it may be replaced with a refurb/reman? No. Are you expected to read through that mass of T’s & C’s with a queue behind you?
You know what, when I take my car in for repair I’m told that it’s a pattern part or exchange before I part with my money. Why can't Apple do that?
Anyway this is all academic now as the court has ruled on it. Hopefully the rest will follow suit.
Last edited:
Hey great!! So the next time you buy a brand new iPhone or iPad, please send it to me in exchange for a much cheaper refurb that I'll buy for you. You'll be happy because you got a "better" device, and I'll be happy because I can make money off you.
Yeah, right. Funny how nobody who claims that refurbs are better, ever takes me up on this offer
--
Refurbs have up to over three times the failure rate of new items, according to repair and insurance firms. You have absolutely no idea what physical, thermal and electrical distress they've been under.
And with Apple refurbs, there could be a half dozen major modules swapped in from other returned devices. Apple does not put in new parts beyond some glass, a case and a battery.
Mind you, I often buy refurbs. But not because I think they're "better". I do it because they're cheaper. And there's a reason why they are.
Be careful... the new device may have been touched accidentally by human workers when it was packed, loosing the level of virginity acceptable for high demanding "the world revolves around me" customers
If getting what I pay for means I think the world revolves around me then call me the Sun. Dropping close to a thousand bucks on a phone in my opinion deserves high quality customer service. They have high enough margins to handle it. Also I don't believe I inferred or said in any way that I was more important than another customer when it comes to getting my phone. You know the whole world revolving around me comment. Out of place and nothing to do with what we were talking about. So yeah, there's that. Also I don't recall suggesting nobody touch it before me, although it's unlikely anyone but me would have touched it by the time I get it.
I agree. Actually, I posted a similar statement about 3 posts before yours. Even said TINSTAAFL....
See:
I think where we might differ in opinion is about if Apple should give new devices as replacements.
I think they should while acknowledging that this may drive up the prices.
I posted earlier saying that if there is a problem with a device under warranty, that Apple should either attempt to fix it, or offer the customer a refurbished device replacement. If the customer chooses to have their device fixed, and Apple determines that they are unable to do so, either by limitations or not being cost effective, then Apple should replace the device with a new one.
I disagree with many posts here that the full warranty should start over from that point though. Apple gives 90 days or the remaining of the initial warranty. I think that is fair.
All that said, this could drive up the price, because I doubt Apple will want their profit margin to drop.
A lot of complaints are made about the price difference of Apple products outside of the US. One of the reasons of the price difference is the consumer protection laws, such as a required 2 year warranty.
What always strikes me reading this site is the number of people who have experience of faulty Apple products and how wonderful Apple service is and how they ALWAYS get instant replacements and great service.
Over years and years neither myself or my sons have had any issues with any Samsung, HTC or Motorola products. Except damage caused by abuse. IE Device taking a heavy fall onto concrete. Apple products must be very unreliable!
Last edited:
Apple products cost more in the EU before two year warranties and the latest rulings about replacing with new.
TANSTAAFL: Tax Apple = no such thing as Apple free love
A company that makes reliable products has nothing to fear from 2 year warranties.
No one said otherwise.
What I pointed out, was that higher warranty costs wasn't a reason back when Apple was already charging more overseas.
I am sure the increased difference since then was, at least in part, influenced by the potential extra warranty claims.
I am not defending Apple in anyway, just pointing out that it is common business practice.
i'm more wondering what will happen when she gets her brand new iPad and something fails in six months. does this 'new' iPad really mean retail new so she has a new one year warranty, can she demand that Apple give her yet another new one etc.
and what about when an iPad is out of the one year warranty and doesn't qualify for EU consumer protections that say after so many months the customer has to prove the issue existed when delivered, especially if the customer can't. would apple still be required to issue a new device with a new warranty or can they use a 'remanufactured' device or even tell the customer to kick rocks and buy a new one cause they won't be offering paid service
[doublepost=1493261117][/doublepost]
there's certainly been no proof shown that they are ******** than new ones.
Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic but I am not disagreeing that you should get the new untouched "sterile" device if the device you paid for was faulty. At the end, you paid to get a fine new working device and that's what you should get, if you unhappy with geting refurbished one. I think a customer should be presented with the option to get either new or refurbished (refurbished maybe with some gift attached to it) I personally would gladly take the refurbished any time, which I have 2 years ago when my device just died after 3 month of use, and I still have the refurbished iPhone working absolutely fine. Is hard for people to grasp that these refurbished devices are just as good and passed quality check in a much detailed way as the so called new ones. In a way they are new but hey.... they had the virginity taken away for one of thousands reasons
I just don't understand why people make such fuss out of it to be honest.If you are producing in excess of 250 million devices per year it's inevitable that you're going to get some failures. Let's not forget that Samsung make several parts for the iPhone so some of those failures will be due to faulty Samsung parts.
It's how you respond to those failures that really counts.
If we want to talk anecdotally I've only ever bought 1 Samsung product (a HD TV) and it's been terrible. I've had to call Samsung out 3 times to it to have parts replaced. The last time they replaced the main board. Since then it's been very slow. 10 seconds to switch off or display the menu. Samsung say that is normal and there's nothing wrong with it. I've relegated it to the kitchen and replaced it with a Panasonic that's been faultless.
I can't speak about HTC or Motorola because I've never owned a product from either company.
After six months the onus is on the buyer to show that the defect was inherent on purchase and not due to misuse/wear and tear etc. In practice, with sealed units such as iPads, this is less difficult than it looks and courts will still look towards Apple's providing a remedy if there is no obvious sign of tampering, water ingress or physical damage that could have caused the malfunction. The manufacturer's warranty is a discretion and usually does not restart after a repair/replacement but continues until its original expiry date. That is up to the manufacturer or the store offering it. In any case, it does not override or replace the consumer's statutory rights.
After six months, the remedies are still repair, replace (like for like) or refund except that replacement does not necessarily have to be brand new and refunds can be calculated pro-rata. Additional local laws may be kinder to the consumer and courts could order a more generous remedy if they find the buyer has been greatly inconvenienced by the faults or the seller's handling of the complaint. There is a certain amount of interpretation open to the courts by the EU directive.
Please remind your fellow countrymen about this when they complain here about how Apple products are soooo much more expensive in your country vs the US.
[doublepost=1493212773][/doublepost]
You probably weren't too thrilled to read this:
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/19/apple-recycled-materials-end-mining/
When you do a direct comparison price-wise including currency exchange and tax - the costs between US and Australia do not vary drastically. However if you compare based on default AU vs US pricing it seems worlds apart.
As for recycling, I don't support any recycling at all especially when companies are making money from second hand parts and components without financially reimbursing the purchaser.
[doublepost=1493291028][/doublepost]
It seems some lost in translation events have occurred. The resolutions offered initially by Apple would not guarantee the issue would not occur again so hence I requested products to be replaced with equivalent if not better hardware in order to avoid these issues down the track - to the best of my ability. Who in their right mind would keep accepting the same model replacement with a history of the initial issue - are people this far gone? People have been programmed to accept initial responses for hardware faults without knowing their consumer rights and contract law. I have been trained in Consumer Law unlike most.
I purchased all these products originally brand new and all have had faults - iPhone 6 plus lightning port failure - iPod touch yellowing screen and battery issue - Macbook Pro AR Coating Issue - these are all hardware faults. Why in the world would I accept the same model which had the original fault when a new model replaces it? Case in point screen one of the MBPR and screen two had the same issue and only a full system replacement resolved the problem. I refused the iPhone 6S Plus for my faulty iPhone 6 Plus because I read and saw the "touch disease" and battery issues which I wanted no part in so I decided to avoid the 6 range completely and go for the 7 plus.
It's not as if I am creating these issues myself and causing any faults. They are all hardware faults not caused by the end-user - myself. Therefore I am not liable for these issues. I bought the products new so I only accept new replacements - no repairs, no remanufacture items - never in my life. In reference to the iPod Touch, Apple admitted to me they don't repair any of these at all as they are all completely sealed (aka no screws) so no internal parts can be repaired or swapped - a benefit to me based on the outcome.
Oh and as for your statement "they've undoubtedly lost money on almost everything you have bought", have you seen their massive margins based on cost of manufacturing and sale price - around 70% profit per device so they so mass production means these are product at low cost. All up these outcomes would cost them very little due to how many of these devices are being made and sold 24 x7 around the world. You make it seem like Apple are poor - they made most of their profit from products produced in China. Their actions are an admission of guilt regarding either poor quality control or manufacturing defects over time.
Proof persistence does pay when its based on sound facts, evidence, and you remain professional.
The return from recycling is part of the equation for determining selling price. That revenue offsets production costs and thus a company can charge less up front for the device; assuming the value of the recycled material exceeds the cost of recycling.
Are you an attorney? If so, I'm curious - what are the applicable laws that require a company to replace a product with a new product if the warranty explicitly states it may be replaced with a refurbished unit for a warranty repair?
In the US, a product has to be fit for purpose so a company can't declaim a warranty if the device doesn't work as intended but they can limit the term and define how repairs are done.
I've had Apple give me the newest Mac when they couldn't fix or replace my nearly 3 year old one under warranty but that i not usually the norm for Apple nor any manufacturer.
The US may be an exception here but warranties are an additional benefit to your statutory rights but cannot diminish nor override them. A right is a right after all.
If applicable consumer laws provide for like-for-like replacement as a remedy then it is a matter of supreme indifference what the manufacturer's warranty allows or whether one exists at all.
I was referring to people who post here stating how everytime they take their faulty devices to Apple they get "great service". This is a common enough claim. Individuals getting multiple faulty products seems to be more than just bad luck.