Annoyed with Apple.. again

[tjb1]

Legally he WOULD have a case in court, seeing as apparently many, many users got their OLD models replaced yet he can't? Why is that? Either Apple applies the same rule to everyone, or they apply it to no one. He IS entitled, legally, as well, because they no longer produce the 2010 models, yet they OWE HIM a working model. How can you even disagree with that? If they can't procure one for him, another solution MOST be come to, otherwise legal ramifications will be in order. At least, they should be. They can't leave him with a defective product.

You people are all up in arms because he used to word entitled. Normally, yes, that's annoying, but legally, now, he is. There's a difference between a store manager being nice once and bending the rules for one person, but for hundreds, possibly? No, that's messed up.

No, they would be required to give him a new one WHEN THE CURRENT STOCK OF 2010 IS GONE. If Apple can still secure a 2010 model that matches his then that is what he gets, because Apple has moved on does not mean the stock has run out. They may replace the older models because THEY ARE OUT. They are not required to give you a BRAND NEW PRODUCT, AppleCare is to FIX. Not replace. If the trackpad goes bad 60 times, they still only have to replace the trackpad.

 

[482214]

I bet you're smiling now.

Well done and enjoy!

 

[MacBookPro13"]

I bet you're smiling now.

Well done and enjoy!

Thanks guys

 

[ddoolin0]

No, they would be required to give him a new one WHEN THE CURRENT STOCK OF 2010 IS GONE. If Apple can still secure a 2010 model that matches his then that is what he gets, because Apple has moved on does not mean the stock has run out. They may replace the older models because THEY ARE OUT. They are not required to give you a BRAND NEW PRODUCT, AppleCare is to FIX. Not replace. If the trackpad goes bad 60 times, they still only have to replace the trackpad.

If this was true, they shouldn't have done it for every other customer. I use "every," lightly, but I can almost guarantee that if I had bought a 2010 model on the 2nd of February or sometime around then, they would replace it with a 2011 model.

Obviously, this (your statement) is false because they continue to do it for anyone who asks and this continues to be the suggestion around here -- take in your 2010 model and get it replaced for a 2011. I think if I got denied the same opportunity everyone else seems to be getting, even though we are all equal customers, they would be hearing from me. They wouldn't, if they just had some stone-solid policies. But they don't.

 

[tjb1]

If this was true, they shouldn't have done it for every other customer. I use "every," lightly, but I can almost guarantee that if I had bought a 2010 model on the 2nd of February or sometime around then, they would replace it with a 2011 model.

Obviously, this (your statement) is false because they continue to do it for anyone who asks and this continues to be the suggestion around here -- take in your 2010 model and get it replaced for a 2011. I think if I got denied the same opportunity everyone else seems to be getting, even though we are all equal customers, they would be hearing from me. They wouldn't, if they just had some stone-solid policies. But they don't.

Good luck in court with that. There is a difference between Apple having to do it and Apple doing it. Also understand, Steve is not the deciding factor...the managers are and choose what they want to do with you.

 

[ozred]

Long story short - purchased my first MacBook Pro 13" on the 2nd of February 2011, was delivered on the 7th 2011. The MPB stopped working on the 8th 2011 and I rang Apple and they shipped a replacement for that computer which I received on the 14th of February 2011. That replacement had two faults, audio and an issue with the bottom of the laptop not built right.

I am annoyed because I specifically asked for the 2011 as a replacement and the guy on the phone gave me the impression that I was getting a 2011 model.

What do I do now?

There are some unadvertised practices that Apple employs.

1) First is they rely on the customer to do the final quality control check. It saves Apple money.

2) They have a liberal return policy since they know that you will be the one to find their mistakes.

3) They have no respect for you, or the value of your time to perform the final inspection & return one or more defective products.

Once you know these things the it's not a shock when they ship you a defective product. You know it's highly likely.

I had to return four new MBP's before receiving one that looked like a new computer. The returns each had multiple deep scratches over 30mm long on the wrist wrests.

They explained to me they were aware they got a batch of scratched up cases but couldn't track them. Perhaps the workers are so well trained they can place them in the boxes without looking at them.

Anyway, it's best to get into acceptance now. You're an Apple owner and this is part of the experience.

Just because it's a lot of money to you doesn't mean that Apple cares that much.

After all it has that special logo on it.

 

[sydenham]

If this was true, they shouldn't have done it for every other customer. I use "every," lightly, but I can almost guarantee that if I had bought a 2010 model on the 2nd of February or sometime around then, they would replace it with a 2011 model.

Obviously, this (your statement) is false because they continue to do it for anyone who asks and this continues to be the suggestion around here -- take in your 2010 model and get it replaced for a 2011. I think if I got denied the same opportunity everyone else seems to be getting, even though we are all equal customers, they would be hearing from me. They wouldn't, if they just had some stone-solid policies. But they don't.

They would be hearing from you? Ooooooh I bet they would be worried about your legal knowledge.

 

[ddoolin0]

They would be hearing from you? Ooooooh I bet they would be worried about your legal knowledge.

Funny how you judge people before you even know a sliver of information about them. What single piece of evidence leads you to the fact that I'm not a lawyer, or have enough knowledge to hold my own weight in a courtroom? Please, save us the trolling. There was/is a serious discussion going on.

Also, yes, there IS a difference between their legal guidelines and what they're actually doing, and therein lies the discrepancy. There shouldn't be, and I don't think it would take much for a judge and jury to see where the problem lies. Either they stop giving freebies to people, or they do it for everyone. I'm not agreeing it's a good policy, or one they should keep doing. I think people should learn a little bit more before making a purchase, else it's on them, but what I do agree with is treating your customer base the same when they all paid to be treated that way.

Not to mention, the MBP he purchased is about equivalent in value to the one he got it replaced with, so the point is probably moot...

 

[ozred]

Sometimes Apple reps listening skills are not the best. It's got to be a hard job dealing with upset people each day.

Yet on the other hand, if Apple had better quality control they wouldn't have great job security like they do now.

 

[sydenham]

Funny how you judge people before you even know a sliver of information about them. What single piece of evidence leads you to the fact that I'm not a lawyer, or have enough knowledge to hold my own weight in a courtroom? Please, save us the trolling.

Also, yes, there IS a difference between their legal guidelines and what they're actually doing, and therein lies the discrepancy. There shouldn't be, and I don't think it would take much for a judge and jury to see where the problem lies. Either they stop giving freebies to people, or they do it for everyone. I'm not agreeing it's a good policy, or one they should keep doing. I think people should learn a little bit more before making a purchase, else it's on them, but what I do agree with is treating your customer base the same when they all paid to be treated that way.

Not to mention, the MBP he purchased is about equivalent in value to the one he got it replaced with, so the point is probably moot...

The evidence in your other post where you posted misinformed information as fact and got pwned. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending to be a lawyer.

 

[ddoolin0]

The evidence in your other post where you posted misinformed information as fact and got pwned. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending to be a lawyer.

I didn't pretend to be a lawyer, read it again. I asked for information that proved otherwise, in which case, there is none. You don't need to be a dick, and that was the sole purpose of your useless post. Which I can't believe you're trying to defend. It's pretty obvious there was no other reason.

Last time I checked, misinformation isn't a characteristic bound to only non-lawyer types, either. Or am I to believe you've never given wrong information based on what you thought to be true? So we should all make fun of people and get fired up because of it? No.

 

[tjb1]

I didn't pretend to be a lawyer, read it again. I asked for information that proved otherwise, in which case, there is none. You don't need to be a dick, and that was the sole purpose of your useless post. Which I can't believe you're trying to defend. It's pretty obvious there was no other reason.

Last time I checked, misinformation isn't a characteristic bound to only non-lawyer types, either.

Because Apple provides the current model as a replacement to 10 people doesnt mean they have to or will do it for you...So show me information that says otherwise?

 

[^^BIGMac]

return for refund...can challenge with CC compnay if necessary...buy the new 2011 model

^^ This.

Too bad you didn't insist on talking to a supervisor and get it settled instead of waiting like you did. Always wise to get a meeting of the minds before hand. I know it takes some patience and time on the phone but in this case it would have been worth it I think.

 

[ddoolin0]

Because Apple provides the current model as a replacement to 10 people doesnt mean they have to or will do it for you...So show me information that says otherwise?

That wasn't directed at you...

I doubt there's anything that specifically says they don't have to, either. Which is what makes it interesting. Which is also what leads into..."Apple needs more rigid policies." Why should they not follow their rules every single time? "We just didn't feel like it doing it for you" is not valid reasoning no matter what way you look at it.

 

[sydenham]

I didn't pretend to be a lawyer, read it again. I asked for information that proved otherwise, in which case, there is none. You don't need to be a dick, and that was the sole purpose of your useless post. Which I can't believe you're trying to defend. It's pretty obvious there was no other reason.

Last time I checked, misinformation isn't a characteristic bound to only non-lawyer types, either. Or am I to believe you've never given wrong information based on what you thought to be true? So we should all make fun of people and get fired up because of it? No.

You did indeed try to insinuate that you were a lawyer, thinking I might be foolish enough to believe you were. There is nothing wrong with being misinformed as long as your man enough to admit it, and possibly apologise.

 

[482214]

Wow... Come on guys lets all be cool.

The problem has been solved and the chap will soon be a happy customer.

No need to go any further into it if its just going to cause upset. Perhaps just agree to disagree. Its unlikely everyone will agree on everything as is ever so evident in forums.

Once again well done and i'm happy that you got a positive outcome.

 

[whateverandever]

That wasn't directed at you...

I doubt there's anything that specifically says they don't have to, either. Which is what makes it interesting. Which is also what leads into..."Apple needs more rigid policies." Why should they not follow their rules every single time? "We just didn't feel like it doing it for you" is not valid reasoning no matter what way you look at it.

Wait... are you seriously arguing that because there is no law that says they DON'T have to do something... that they have to do it? That is a brilliant mind at work.

Giving Apple managers the flexibility to help people on a case-by-case basis is part of what makes Apple stand above other companies. A good example is the dude that got mugged after leaving WWDC last year and had his iPad screen shattered. It's technically Apple's policy to not replace that because it wasn't a hardware defect but because the Apple Store manager had the flexibility to grant a little kindness here and there he got it replaced.

 

[ddoolin0]

Wait... are you seriously arguing that because there is no law that says they DON'T have to do something... that they have to do it? That is a brilliant mind at work.

Giving Apple managers the flexibility to help people on a case-by-case basis is part of what makes Apple stand above other companies. A good example is the dude that got mugged after leaving WWDC last year and had his iPad screen shattered. It's technically Apple's policy to not replace that because it wasn't a hardware defect but because the Apple Store manager had the flexibility to grant a little kindness here and there he got it replaced.

No, just no. Please read. I simply stated that there is no policy, not that they have to do one way or the other. If anything, I don't think they should do it.

I'm not agreeing it's a good policy, or one they should keep doing. I think people should learn a little bit more before making a purchase, else it's on them, but what I do agree with is treating your customer base the same when they all paid to be treated that way.

You did indeed try to insinuate that you were a lawyer, thinking I might be foolish enough to believe you were. There is nothing wrong with being misinformed as long as your man enough to admit it, and possibly apologise.

If that was insinuation, then pigs can fly. I simply asked you how you knew I wasn't a lawyer, which is in no way insinuating that I am.

EDIT: I'm not sure what's with people's inability to not insult someone around here before they just type something out and press Submit without thinking about it...

 

[sydenham]

No, just no. Please read. I simply stated that there is no policy, not that they have to do one way or the other. If anything, I don't think they should do it.





If that was insinuation, then pigs can fly. I simply asked you how you knew I wasn't a lawyer, which is in no way insinuating that I am.

EDIT: I'm not sure what's with people's inability to not insult someone around here before they just type something out and press Submit without thinking about it...

Yea, you should take your own advice before you go calling people foul names for questioning the validity of your statements.

 

[ddoolin0]

I'm amused about how neither of you responded on the topics that I addressed to each of you. Nor did I call anyone a foul name (?).

Guess that means there's nothing left to talk about. See ya.

 

[whateverandever]

I'm amused about how neither of you responded on the topics that I addressed to each of you. Nor did I call anyone a foul name (?).

Guess that means there's nothing left to talk about. See ya.

There were no topics addressed by you that presented a request for response, you simply shrugged off and disregarded the fact that you make outlandish claims.

On the contrary, I presented a great case for why Apple should not have a strict policy that cannot be bent by managers. You completely ignored it.

 

[ddoolin0]

On the contrary, I presented a great case for why Apple should not have a strict policy that cannot be bent by managers. You completely ignored it.

Perhaps. I didn't ignore it (mentally ). I read it, and understand it, but didn't reply on it. And for the most part, I agree. It just seems like crappy business practice to acknowledge that one perfectly polite and nice person can be denied something that another person is granted. Of course, jerks and generally obtuse people shouldn't be given anything, but it'd be nice to see something at least mentioned so you know your complete rights when in a situation like this. Maybe they don't have to strictly define it, but guidelines would be helpful. I don't doubt the competency and kindness of Apple store managers usually, but leaving holes open can cause problems, as history has shown time and time again.

I guess it just seems like a split in my compass. On one hand, yeah, the fact that they can have the human ability to react on a case-by-case basis is good, but at the same time, the human ability to judge inaccurately is also possible, where most of would probably agree on a case being fair/unfair, they might think otherwise. Seems unfair to some people.

I just added the other guy to my ignore list...I hope he doesn't mind. I wasn't trying to be a dick. I just don't enjoy being provoked, so why let myself be? Some people like drama and subject themselves to it voluntarily. Not me.

 

[HBOC]

No, they would be required to give him a new one WHEN THE CURRENT STOCK OF 2010 IS GONE. If Apple can still secure a 2010 model that matches his then that is what he gets, because Apple has moved on does not mean the stock has run out. They may replace the older models because THEY ARE OUT. They are not required to give you a BRAND NEW PRODUCT, AppleCare is to FIX. Not replace. If the trackpad goes bad 60 times, they still only have to replace the trackpad.

apparently you have never had to utilize AppleCare or have had problems (been without your computer for weeks at a time, several times). While it is true that Apple won't just give you a new computer due to something not working, but they will fix it. They have guidelines as to when they will replace the computer. Mine had the following:
logicboard replaced twice
keyboard replaced twice
upper case replaced
new Matte screen with bezel

The last of the repairs (in December) cost a shade over $1300 in parts and maybe $130 in labor. The first logicboard was probably $500 in parts and labor.

When I went back in to Apple last Thursday and asked for a replacement, as mine was STILL having the same problems, the genius agreed to replace it. He looked up to see how long each time I was without my MBP. It was gone for 2 1/2 weeks in December 2010 and a week in December 2008. Also gone a week last summer.

So my point is they will replace a computer when it is not very "economical" to keep dumping money into a computer after so many repairs. It is ofcourse up to the individual genius's discretion.

 

[sydenham]

Perhaps. I didn't ignore it (mentally ). I read it, and understand it, but didn't reply on it. And for the most part, I agree. It just seems like crappy business practice to acknowledge that one perfectly polite and nice person can be denied something that another person is granted. Of course, jerks and generally obtuse people shouldn't be given anything, but it'd be nice to see something at least mentioned so you know your complete rights when in a situation like this. Maybe they don't have to strictly define it, but guidelines would be helpful. I don't doubt the competency and kindness of Apple store managers usually, but leaving holes open can cause problems, as history has shown time and time again.

I guess it just seems like a split in my compass. On one hand, yeah, the fact that they can have the human ability to react on a case-by-case basis is good, but at the same time, the human ability to judge inaccurately is also possible, where most of would probably agree on a case being fair/unfair, they might think otherwise. Seems unfair to some people.

I just added the other guy to my ignore list...I hope he doesn't mind. I wasn't trying to be a dick. I just don't enjoy being provoked, so why let myself be? Some people like drama and subject themselves to it voluntarily. Not me.

I agree some people do like to subject themselves to drama. And when found out they run away and hide in shame. Its especially funny when they try to pawn themselves off as something they are not and get pawned...

 

[Naimfan]

Legally he WOULD have a case in court, seeing as apparently many, many users got their OLD models replaced yet he can't? Why is that? Either Apple applies the same rule to everyone, or they apply it to no one. He IS entitled, legally, as well, because they no longer produce the 2010 models, yet they OWE HIM a working model.

The above is simply wrong and speaks to an utter lack of knowledge of the relevant law.