Apple uses water damaged boards in Apple refurbished devices? [video] | Hacker News Reader

Apple uses water damaged boards in Apple refurbished devices? [video]

youtube.com

92 pointstbirdz31 comments

Ok, first I am always in awe of people who have the skill to disassemble, fix at the component level, and reassemble modern electronics. I am also not surprised that both the independent repair folks get told they aren't as good as Apple, and that Apple isn't doing anything more or less magical in their repairs.

I do however take a bit of issue with generalizing from one or two instances. Just as there are "bad" independent repair techs, there are no doubt "bad" Apple repair techs. And bad techs make sloppy repairs, period. The reality is that the "best" your electronic device will be, is likely just after it comes off the assembly line and passes QA, that entire assembly process and the components used are tightly controlled so you get the best possible outcome. Rework inevitably it hard on components, traces, and often has to use materials that differ from the ones usable in the original manufacture.

I doubt that Apple refurbs the devices themselves. They are most likely sent over to China and repaired in a sweatshop by workers inhaling solder and adhesive fumes all day.

Apple should maintain a standard of quality control. If this is representative of that control, then what she is saying is correct in that their work is not representative of what they espouse.

Right, but it's either apple policy to repair and resell water damaged boards or not. I can't believe a line level tech is going to make that call contrary to policy. Or care really; I doubt his or her salary is affected either way on the call whether a board is salvageable or not.

Can someone tell me what the big deal is here? Apple's refurb devices are guaranteed. Isn't it binary whether or not the water damage kills the device? I.e. if they're able to sell a water damaged board with a few replaced chips on it, then the water damage by definition isn't an issue because the board is working.

The refurb was faulty. She says in the video that if it had been done properly merely dropping the device would not have broken it, and the customer wouldn't have had to get it repaired again.

The distinction is between "working" and "robust." They sold a working device, but not an "Apple quality" robust device.

The biggest issue I see is that the original tech didn't replace the underfill. As a result the PMIC would not have the same drop resistance as a factory installed chip.

I would expect anything sold as refurbished to meet the same spec as a new device, and this one absolutely doesn't. This includes mechanical specs, which would not be fully tested when smoke-testing a rework.

I'm not saying anything about this example, but why would you expect a refurbished unit, sold at a lower price than a new device to meet the same specs as that new device?

Surely, something must be different about it?

Yes, it is different because it's used. It's also supposed to be have been brought back to new condition on the inside where damaged and faulty parts have been replaced by as-new parts, not by replacement parts that are also damaged.

This is what is meant by refurbished, as opposed to repaired.

Apple's refurb stuff generally undergoes a more stringent QA process than their factory stuff (in fact a lot of the refurb units are returns that were never used, but are still checked). There might be some visible differences if repairs are required, but the quality should generally be as-good or better. The iPad in this video is either an anomaly or, more likely, not an unaltered refurb from Apple.

Because Apple says so when they sell you the refurbished unit! They say it will be the same like a new unit from the functional side. And if that underfill (the resin/glue referred to in the video) was not important, Apple wouldn't have bothered to put it there for new factory units, consequently increasing their manufacturing cost as well as their refurbishing cost - since removing the black underfill/glue to replace those chips is a nightmare (I know, I do it for a living). On the flip side, underfill provides much more durability and protection from liquid damage (liquid is prevented from slipping under the chip and damaging the balls = contact points = solder joints) and helps the device sustain a lot of abuse. Whoever has children or repairs those devices for a living can tell you the huge amount of abuse they are subject to. So skipping on the underfill process for refurbished units is a "design fault" in my humble opinion. This as well as leaving corroded caps and components on the board. When I fix a MacBook Pro board that was damaged from a liquid spill, I replace every corroded component I can find, even if still functional, to future proof my repair.

The issue is that Apple is trying to make it impossible for independent repair shops to buy the components (proprietary ICs and such) they need to fix the boards. Here's a video by someone who fixes Apple laptops for a living: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcuAF3OJIoU

This is an interesting case because dropping a phone is the customer's fault (and thus that action voids the Apple warranty) but based upon the videos claims, the refurbish process did appear to alter the overall durability of the phone.

I suppose there is a risk involved with buying anything refurbished... whether from the manufacturer or not.

For anyone that is interested, Apple has published a few QA and inspection processes involved with refurbishment. Would be surprising if 1. it slipped through this process 2. Apple doesn't actually perform these inspections 3. this device was deemed fit for resale under Apple's standards

http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/refurbfaq...

I'm still not completely convinced this was an unaltered Apple refurbished phone though (and I'm not sure we will ever know)...

I did repairs at an authorized store for about 5 years. It's unlikely that her customer both knew the repair history of that iPad and reported it truthfully. It's also extremely unlikely they they knew and reported truthfully whether the iPad had every been exposed to liquid while in their possession. People just usually aren't honest about these things (and who can blame them when it means the difference between a free iPad replacement and a repair that costs almost as much as buying a new one?).

And no matter how clear we tried to be at my shop, we could not seem to convince customers that we were not owned and run by Apple. I can't even get my friends and co-workers to stop saying that I worked for Apple, so the fact that her customer reported to her that this iPad was replaced by a corporate Apple Store means just about nothing. Funnily enough, if her shop was an authorized repair center, it would have been trivial for her to verify the repair/purchase history.

It's also really frustrating that the video is blurry when she's trying to point out the water damage. All I could make out of flux from the solder job. I also suspect, but can't say authoritatively, that the "heat damage" she pointed out was just an artifact of after-factor solder work on the board, not from the board shorting or overheating. Unless a chip is visibly burned or blown out, you really need to test it to know whether it's been damaged.

In addition to what other commenters have said: Maybe I missed something (it is a 10 minute video), but how do we know whoever brought in the water-damaged iPad in for repair hadn't caused the water damage themselves? They could have gotten it a bit wet, but not enough to kill anything.

I also find the evidence for the iPad never having been worked on before fairly tenuous - I've done repairs using swapped Apple parts in the past (ie Apple original digitizers), and I doubt everybody who does aftermarket repairs uses the same adhesive.

Also, this is really a n of 1. So Apple maybe shipped a single crappy refurb. I'm not sure that's cause for huge alarm, or enough to make broad claims about their entire refurb program.

I guess what I'm saying is while the allegation might be true, the evidence here seems fairly shaky IMHO.

It is at least n=2. I have seen the exact same thing once before. Keep in mind that I will only see an iPad that was from a user who went to Apple for a refurb after a problem with their original, and then went to independent repair rather than back to Apple for a subsequent problem. That is less common than someone going straight to independent repair with a problem on the original or sticking with Apple for a problem with a refurb

I've seen something worse! Once had a 5C come in for repair. Still under warranty, so sent it to and Apple Store in the USA for replacement. We don't have an Apple Store in my country. Got back a unit that upon reception didn't start. Lifted the screen to inspect it out of curiosity, because it looked somewhat used from the outside, before proceeding to send back to Apple (and waiting another 3 week for the trip back and forth) and saw a device missing plates, screws, with a sticker inside with some Chinese words, and the red LCI (water indicators) were tripped (meaning the unit was water damaged prior). We sent it back and they declined to replace it again because... it had liquid damage and was tempered with!! After much aggravation, they accepted to replace it OOW (they usually don't replace devices that had been tempered with even OOW). Since then Apple Certified Service Providers in my country were allowed to replace iOS devices under warranty, and we did receive defective units on a few occasions that were fortunately replaced. But the second worse "incident" was my 15" 2011 laptop that had the logic board replaced 3 times under the Apple logic board program, before I got back a working unit! The ACSP told me that it happened many times over, but only (?) twice did they have to replace the same board 3 times in row! They're all refurbished boards of course (nothing wrong with that), but their QA after refurbishing seems to let a lot of bad Apples (pun intended) through!!

What worries me more than the evidence for water-damaged components is what seems to be a substantial amount of hair on that 'refurbished' board. It did not notice any hair on the 'factory-stock' board, so I assume that the source of the hair is not this repair shop. If this is the (lack of) quality of work Apple refurbishments get, Apple has some serious issues wrt. quality control. The other option is that this device was in fact repaired by a third party which used the proper adhesive procedure (which seems to be to apply more than one layer of adhesive).

Outside of a warranty, this should be a concern.

In warranty, it's important to remember you are not buying a computer, as much as a guaranteed computer.

Apple has decent warranty for replacements if a machine has multiple issues in a short amount of time.

I would never buy any laptop I can spend 8-10 hours a day on most days without a laptop. In fact, the replacements that Apple has ended up fairly replacing if my machines have misbehaved too often have been priceless.

Jas

TL;DR there was no underfill injected after a chip was replaced in an iPad mini that was repaired/refurbished by Apple or an authorised repair shop.

That's all. We don't know if that was an oversight or not. We don't know if Apple requires underfill to be applied. So this is all just speculation AFAICS.

I can definitely say that the quality of Apple refurbs has gone downhill.

I lost radio access randomly in Europe while traveling with a Genius Bar replaced iPhone 6. No cellular service whatsoever. Awful. Kept cutting in and out for days and then stopped working completely.

Had to buy a new phone for cash.

Can someone explain how those two capacitors exhibit "clearly water damage"? (about 6:25 onwards)

Is it the dull grey (not shiny silver) solder?

Misleading title... Of course they use damaged boards in the refurbished devices. Otherwise it'd be "new."

The woman here makes a great point about repairability though, a quality shop should can do just as good (or better in this particular case) of a job as Apple. Apple wants you to throw away expensive devices at a whim...

I agree -- by definition a "refurbished" device is one that was returned and repaired. That's why they are cheaper. You can expect it is not quite as good or reliable as a new one -- though Apple does warranty them so that's the tradeoff for the lower price.

The point to add is that if you pay for a new device, and you notice anything faulty about it and take it back, you will be handed a refurb like this one as your in warranty replacement if it has been 15 days or more since the purchase.

I kind of find this video to be disingenuous. She claims that the device was direct from Apple and only proof is by the parts they used and the craftsmanship, in the comments she does mention receipt, but no timeframe so could've been replaced by Apple the later repaired by someone else, also she implies 3rd party vendors parts and craftsmanship is just as good. So wouldn't it stand to reason that it's equally possible they got the repair done somewhere else and not mention it?

I've worked as a tech long enough to know customers often forget to mention all damage, issues & past repairs. Sometimes out of malice, but generally simply because they forgot, they don't know better or they weren't privy to all the info (bringing it in for some other family member, so on).

Also, bad boards happen regardless if they're refurbished or new. With Apple supplied boards I find that to be the exception rather then the rule. Wish I could say the same about 3rd party vendors, I understand it's a cut throat business and Apple getting into the business a decade and a half ago didn't help, but this video really seems to want to make Apple out as the villain trying to pass off crap products/repairs as ok.

After opening thousands of iPads, there is no question whether you are opening an iPad sealed by Apple, or if has had a prior repair and been resealed.

Independent repair screen swaps can be very good, especially when 100% of the old adhesive is removed, the frame cleaned, and the aftermarket adhesive is of original quality. But even with this, the pressure required to remove the sealed screen is less than an original screen. The dust seal between the LCD and digitizer can't be replicated (or isn't replicated) by independent repair. The dust seal in this mini was intact.

There is no question, from experience, that this mini was an Apple refurb. Also, I don't know of any other shop that would replace the iPad mini PMIC. We only do it under duress since the effort required to CNC drill out the old chip, combined with the cost of the new chip is not amenable to profitable board repair compared the market value of a used iPad mini first gen.

There is no question that this board was an Apple refurb, and it's not the first one that I've seen that is like it. In reality, it is a very good refurb. Those damaged caps are not likely to cause any practical problems, and replacing the PMIC underfill was probably deemed not that important--which I would agree with.

I have no problem with Apple putting out refurbs like this, it is a great environmental move. But own it. It is what it is. I'd like to see Apple say "You betcha, that's our work and we're damn proud of it."

Hi Jessa! Thanks for making the video, and welcome to Hacker News.

Thank you for the explanation, I left the repair industry just as iOS devices started to take the forefront and there wasn't much left to "repair" w/o getting out (de)soldering and reflow equipment.

Pretty sure they do "own it", that's what the whole warranty, either original or 90 days from last repair is all about. ;) I just think a single digit # of boards, that should've possibly failed QA, making it out to the public compared to the thousands you've seen is a pretty good testament to them being damn proud of their work.

Re-reading the description for your video, I think the issue is for non-AASP repair centers, much like any 3rd party repair location (whether it be Apple, or some other name brand electronic, appliance, or vehicle) is guaranteeing the quality of parts and labor one gets from the plethora of independents out there. I think the real issue to rail against is the plethora of poor 3rd party repairs that aren't certified or backed by any sort of warranty vs these outliers, as they're the ones that really cast a bad light on the independent.

I agree that poor third party repair shops are an incredible nuisance to the independent repair industry. But on par with that is how entrenched the opposite viewpoint seems to be among Apple fans--that "only Apple is qualified to repair Apple devices" The reason I made this video is to shine a light on what Apple refurbishment really means. I don't believe this case is an outlier. I have only ever seen two iPads that I knew for sure were Apple refurb and both were like this. More strikingly, is the iPhone 6/6+ touch ic epidemic. There is widespread failure of the touch ic(s) leading to a characteristic gray flashing bar at the top of the screen and loss of touch function. What stinks is that many people turning in their in-warranty new iPhones for this defect are leaving with Apple refurb phones that contain boards that once had another life in someone else's hands. The problem is exacerbated by drop, so these refurb boards that made their way back to Apple have a high percentage of having sustained a drop severe enough to warrant trading in the phone for out of warranty replacement. When Apple puts these boards straight into new housings with a new screen and battery, the refurb is set up for touch ic failure---and we are seeing tons of reports of touch failures in refurb phones.

Compare that to independent repair where a new touch ic is soldered on the board to replace the weak original chip--that is a much more robust solution, and carries a longer warranty.

I was prompted to make this video to just float the idea that "Apple always has superior repair because only they are 'authorized' to fix their products" is not true.

My motivation largely came from aggressive bullying and harassment, by some of the regulars at the Apple Support Community forum at any mention of independent repair as a viable option. I was banned from the forum for continuing to suggest that some problems could best be served by independent repair (such as data recovery after water damage) I did another video on my experience there. http://youtu.be/3VqYui3piV8

Reply on news.ycombinator.com