My MBA died just after the 12 month warranty!

TC25 said:

I look forward to the day when a company like Apple tells the govt busybodies, and their nanny state regulations, they will solve the problem by not doing business in their country.

Click to expand...

But that wouldn't make any sense at all. If the UK demanded that all smartphones have to ship in a gold plated case, then Apple would ship their iPhones in gold plated cases, and add the cost plus a bit of profit plus 20% VAT to the price. No problem for Apple at all.

Actually, companies that produce quality products benefit from better consumer protection. If company A produces computers that fall apart after a year, and company B produces computers that typically last at least three years, which one do you think has no problem with consumer protection laws, and which one would complain about "government busybodies" and "nanny state"?

And when someone complained about your very political signature, you wrote:

TC25 said:

Clearly, the truth bothers you. Sad but not unexpected.

Click to expand...

I can't see any truth in your signature that would bother anyone. I think what bothered that poster was the quite insulting political statement that you were making.

Ok Time to Buy Applecare on this machine... Not sure why the quote you were given is that ridiculous ) the price of a refurbished unit , I had an issue with my 2009 MBP a while ago and If I'm not mistaken they gave me a $300 quote to fix whatever that was wrong with it ( I Didn't) but in all honesty it's not a bad deal for 2011/2012 machine. anyhow I will buy AppleCare real soon thanks to this post

gnasher729 said:

Two other reasons:

1. Some people _want_ extended warranties, insurance, protection plans etc.

2. Some people would look at product A offering a protection plan and product B not offering a protection plan. They would conclude that A is making money by selling a protection plan, which means A must be well-built. And they conclude B wouldn't make money by selling the same protection plan, so B must be built less well. So it seems logical to not buy B, but to buy A without protection plan.

----------



VAT is a pure tax. Apple doesn't keep any of it, it goes straight to the state. VAT doesn't pay for better consumer protection. If Apple has additional cost because of better consumer protection, that money comes straight out of Apple's profits.

Click to expand...

yes, and when someone "_wants_" something they can choose to pay for it, or not. if i want a glass of lemonade i will buy one. if someone else doesn't, they won't.
moreover, if i want a glass of lemonade, but not more than i want my quarter, then no sale happens. Likewise if the kid at the stand wants my money, but doesn't value his glass of lemonade the same as my 20 cents i'm offering, then again no sale happens.

Everything a company does is in hopes that the consumer would want that feature. Apple thinks people want retina displays, so they offer retina displays - and hope to profit off them. Why would the protection plan be any different?

Do you honestly think they didn't do the math to figure out what the pricepoint would be? X% of our devices are Y% likely to fail during Z timeperiod. Therefore we need to charge A to break even and B to make C profit.

My money is that they're charging precisely B for apple care.


No sale happens unless both parties would rather have what the other is selling more than what they have to offer.

As for your second post- yes, VAT is "pure tax" although i'm not really sure what that means. what is an impure tax? every tax goes right to the government but for a highly elastic good, like a computer, the tax burden is shared equally between the seller and the consumer.

If they put a dish at the counter and at every sale someone has to put a dollar in it, it doesn't matter if the cashier or the consumer drops the dollar in, the tax burden is the same. Now for inelastic goods, this tax burden starts to shift towards the consumer. this is why things like "luxury" taxes and other taxes designed to regulate behaviour and morality are used.
this is basic economics.

of course these taxes "pay for better consumer protection"
if the EU law requires Apple to honour a warranty for 3, 5 or 50 years, then either they are subsidizing those costs or apple is shifting them onto the consumer. or both.

Apple again does the math and come up with their new pricepoint. And the proof is in the pudding - look at the price difference between what an American pays relative to a European.

gnasher729 said:

But that wouldn't make any sense at all. If the UK demanded that all smartphones have to ship in a gold plated case, then Apple would ship their iPhones in gold plated cases, and add the cost plus a bit of profit plus 20% VAT to the price. No problem for Apple at all.

Actually, companies that produce quality products benefit from better consumer protection. If company A produces computers that fall apart after a year, and company B produces computers that typically last at least three years, which one do you think has no problem with consumer protection laws, and which one would complain about "government busybodies" and "nanny state"?

Click to expand...

because again, you are yourself declaring that there is a demand for computers that don't "Fall apart after a year" so why does the state need to be involved at all?

As i said earlier, if Apple computers had a reputation for failing after a year, then the demand for their products would go down and therefore so would the price. We make these kinds of decisions all the time.

As to your first statement - that is precisely the point. these kinds of laws ultimately hurt the consumer! it doesn't have to be an us vs them mentality that so many seem to want to cultivate.

Obviously the UK isn't going to demand "that all smartphones have to ship in a gold plated case" because, as you say, "Apple would ship their iPhones in gold plated cases, and add the cost plus a bit of profit plus 20% VAT to the price. No problem for Apple at all."

but it would absolutely be a problem for the consumer - and then ultimately a problem for Apple and nobody would be able to purchase these phones and eventually the industry would die.

Your example is clearly an extreme to illustrate your point. But all of his is a sliding-scale, and that's the point i am trying to make: scale it back a bit and the same principles apply. These kinds of laws actually hurt the consumer (whom they claim to protect) and the industry as a whole.

I am not an anarchist - i don't believe that there should be no regulation or "consumer protection" but i do believe that the market is far more efficient with these kinds of industries than anything government can do, even with the best intentions.

I believe that no company has the right to defraud their customers - so, for example, if Apple were releasing faulty logic boards that would fail after a year or 2 and they knew it, then they would be vulnerable to litigation or even criminal prosecution. But just issuing a blanket ruling that Apple must extend warranties for 5 years hurts the consumer, creates dead weight loss and hurts the industry as a whole.

Not to mention it is a very anti-liberty policy. Companies should be free to operate as they see fit as long as they are not violating the rights of others. People choose whether or not to participate in this market - that right there keeps it honest.

A good example of where government absolutely should be heavily involved is pollution. If Apple raises their prices and you don't like that then you can do something about it: don't buy one. However if Apple is dumping toxic waste into your drinking supply then there is nothing you can do about it - as you are an externality, not involved in the market. THAT is where government should step in and do some "consumer protection"