MacBook Pro screen replaced with non-genuine?

Cloudane

UPDATE: I'm pretty confident now that it IS genuine, and only the label is a copy. Having seen how they're disassembled, presumably when combining good housings with good LCDs, I can see that the label would rarely survive the disassembly.

There have been other issues but at the moment I'm pretty confident it'll be sorted.


I just had my 2017 MacBook Pro display replaced under insurance (Leisure Guard / Trent Services, who sent it to 'The New PC') after the original cracked. Generally speaking the replacement seems of decent quality BUT it is clearly a fake. The way I can tell is what should say "MacBook Pro" underneath the display actually says "Mac Book Pro" (notice the space, that Apple does not do. My Dad has the same laptop and I placed them side by side and the difference is clear, it's also a different typeface). The whole section underneath the display is also a plastic layer that can be peeled (I caught a corner of it when wiping it) whereas the original is glass.

Now, I can understand why they'd do this. I had a search around out of curiosity and a genuine replacement by Apple would cost about £700. Furthermore Apple does not sell parts to unauthorised repair shops (they did advise me the repair company is unauthorised but I assumed the actual parts would be genuine, perhaps salvaged from another laptop). So naturally, they'll use fake parts to make it cheaper for everyone.

But I'm still not sure it's really acceptable. The fact it's an expensive laptop and expensive to repair is precisely why I took out insurance on it! It also means I now don't know if I can trust the display quality e.g. accurate colour reproduction for my photography etc.

Are they even allowed to do this? I've seen "car analogies" where it's considered acceptable to use non-OEM parts but I think that's a little different. What we have here is a non-OEM part that is a fake and made to look like the original.

Should I be hassling them?

It bothers me that it's taken a full month just to get this far (now I know why, the replacement screen had to take the slow boat from China from some random Aliexpress vendor) and now I'd potentially be looking at a long drawn out legal battle.... by the end of it the laptop would probably be obsolete.

Browntoa

It's acceptable as long as it's a comparative quality.

Probably buried in their terms and conditions somewhere that they can use OEM or used parts

Browntoa

Looking at their website , the recycle parts

Cloudane

Thanks... if it's standard practice then fair enough, I'll take it as a lesson learned about insurance. I think it's poor form as they don't make it clear at all when you buy the insurance (they only tell you when you claim that they use an unauthorised repairer, for example) but then that's a reason to campaign for better regulation rather than to waste months battling over the individual case.

At least it appears to be a decent quality screen otherwise, aside from a little bit of backlight bleed at the bottom (if it's bright you can make out the row of LEDs)

This is the policy wording, I couldn't find anything saying they might use replica parts, but nothing promising they use genuine either. In general it seems vague enough that they can probably manipulate the interpretation to suit.
http://leisureguardgadgetinsurance.com/docs/lg_monthly_policy_wording.pdf

Browntoa

It's common now in car repairs for insurance purposes to use recovered parts from write offs

Cloudane

The difference here is it's not a recovered part, it's a replica (almost certainly from China as they're very good at that)

Perhaps it's better than a recovered part from an otherwise faulty laptop as that could be all scratched up etc. Hard to say really - it depends on things like longevity, subtle aspects like if the anti-reflective coating is as good as it was etc.

Just compared display quality with my dad's. Seems about equal. Mine's got a slightly more yellow tone (warmer white point) but that's fairly normal as no LCD is the same - it drives people on Macrumors mad when they put iPhones side by side and start returning them for being "yellow". Max brightness is a tiny bit less as well, though not massively, it's only maybe 100 nits or so difference. Fortunately I don't tend to use it outdoors.
Could even be that the LCD is original and just has a refurbished fascia. The bottom bit does "peel", it just normally needs heat. Here's one being taken apart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KxpwoFBvnQ

Blibble

Browntoa wrote: »

It's acceptable as long as it's a comparative quality.

This isn't necessarily the case. It's acceptable if it's in the terms of the policy that they may use non-OEM parts. If the policy specifically advises that repairs must be with genuine parts, then it's not acceptable regardless of whether the parts are comparative quality.

What does your policy state first and foremost?

Cloudane

The policy doesn't state whether the parts would be genuine or not.

Another issue is that the ambient light sensor isn't working. Not the end of the world, but a bit annoying. I just wonder if it's worth sending back over as it's part of the full LCD/lid assembly which would mean another 3 week wait. That was long enough already

A final gotcha is the screen colour calibration - I'll guess that each display is calibrated when the machine is built and stored in the firmware - but different LCD means more screwy (very green greys) colours. It's possible, but difficult, to calibrate out.

Next laptop will be a Thinkpad!

On the bright side (heh), full brightness is equal between mine and my dad's original display now. SMC reset restored the full range. I was hoping it'd also restore the ambient light sensor function, but we can't win 'em all...