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.
Apple Launches Battery Replacement Program for Non-Touch Bar 13-Inch MacBook Pro Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not sure what you mean. How much waste is there when Apple replaces so much when it is just a failed battery?Why do you assume it goes into a landfill?
How much energy went in to those components and their distribution?
How much did the user pay for this replacement? Nothing in this world is free, we all pay in higher prices.
Not sure what you mean. How much waste is there when Apple replaces so much when it is just a failed battery?
"How much waste" is a relative concept. If it is more (cost/eco) efficient to replace them both, why should we do the arm-chair quarterbacking?
How much energy went in to those components and their distribution?
Obviously someone with much more background info and insight is able to make that decision.
How much did the user pay for this replacement? Nothing in this world is free, we all pay in higher prices.
Of course nothing is free, but that doesn't mean the consumer pays more. Maybe the cost of the repair program is $2M. For all we know, there is a team of 10K Apple employees that all get $200 reduced from their annual bonus metric that they're measured on. These kind of expenses are often all rolled into a set of profit metrics that may or may not be impacted by this recall. Alternately, Apple could be getting some concessions from the battery manufacturer to cover these costs, reducing their own profit margins.
Bottom line: as consumers, we don't have enough information to know how much efficiency would be gained by not replacing the top case as well, or if any of costs are passed along to future BOMs of Macs.
"Of course nothing is free, but that doesn't mean the consumer pays more.
On balance I would have to say you are wrong. Take for instance the repair cost of an iPhone X, the cost to repair the rear glass panel is an eye watering $550 (If I remember correctly). Why? Because the consumer is being slugged for all the components that are glued to said glass. Perhaps you are fine with that but I know that the majority of consumers are appalled at that price. Phones get dropped, glass breaks, Apple is not failing safe with such a large repair cost.
The costs of different repairs/services are absorbed through different means, not all (but likely many) are directly passed to a consumer in the form of higher cost.On balance I would have to say you are wrong. Take for instance the repair cost of an iPhone X, the cost to repair the rear glass panel is an eye watering $550 (If I remember correctly). Why? Because the consumer is being slugged for all the components that are glued to said glass. Perhaps you are fine with that but I know that the majority of consumers are appalled at that price. Phones get dropped, glass breaks, Apple is not failing safe with such a large repair cost.
Any repair that Apple does is going to pass on the cost to the consumer if they are out of warranty.The costs of different repairs/services are absorbed through different means, not all (but likely many) are directly passed to a consumer in the form of higher cost.
If they are still in warranty Apple pays the cost. I don't see how that cost can be zero for Apple, hence it is passed on to the consumer through higher costs. As Apple continues soldering, gluing and riveting parts together, that cost goes up.
Any repair that Apple does is going to pass on the cost to the consumer if they are out of warranty.
If they are still in warranty Apple pays the cost. I don't see how that cost can be zero for Apple, hence it is passed on to the consumer through higher costs. As Apple continues soldering, gluing and riveting parts together, that cost goes up.
I never said that the cost would be zero. I said that the cost may not always be passed directly to the consumer.
I feel you are implying that Apple's approach to building things is great because it doesn't have an impact on the consumer which is clearly wrong as I have shown. As Apple glues, solders and rivets multiple parts together, the replacement cost of any of these becomes close to the sum of the parts. When it doesn't Apple is subsidising the cost which in the end is passed on to the consumer as higher costs.I never said that the cost would be zero. I said that the cost may not always be passed directly to the consumer.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.