“Reasonable amount of time” as defined by Apple, not the customer. The six hours of driving to get to and return from an Apple store is already an unreasonable amount of time. Making the customer wait at the store while they try and fix apples mistake is insult to injury. But let’s go with the car analogy. I drop my car off for repair and they give me a loaner. When *I* am ready to pick it up I come back and get it and give them their car back.
Funny, it's a 10-minute drive to my Apple Store. Meantime, the auto dealerships I've dealt with don't hand out loaner vehicles. One or two have offered shuttle van service, scheduled at their convenience rather than mine. Maybe the cars I buy aren't sufficiently premium?
If you're six hours from an Apple Store, then it makes more sense to ship your phone to Apple. Unless you believe Apple is required to build a shop anywhere you choose to live. Under the circumstances, you probably would have been better off buying whatever brand of phone
does operate an authorized warranty repair center within ten minutes of your home.
Besides, this whole loaner car example is not what we're talking about. What you really expect from Apple is a replacement unit, so that you spend a minimum of time and never have to return to the shop. Your auto dealer isn't giving you an as-new replacement car to keep. You're getting a loaner so that you can go about your business before returning to pickup your repaired vehicle; dents, aging battery, sludgy oil, stained upholstery, and all.
While you may not be among those demanding a brand-new replacement rather than an "as-new" unit that may have been refurbished, there are those who do demand that. It'd be a great deal if you could use a product for six months, a year, or more, and get a brand new one in return, but it does come at a higher cost to the manufacturer, and in the end, that cost is built into the price of the product. Considering all the people who criticize Apple for the price of their products, do you really think most of the public would accept, "But you'll get a brand-new replacement if it fails during warranty" as a justification for that higher price?
Of course, some people simply believe they deserve more than the world is willing to give them. "I paid a lot, I should get all that I wish for." The world doesn't work that way. Look at the spec sheet and look at the price tag. If the specs don't justify the price, don't buy it. Read the warranty before you buy - it's one of the product's features. Understand just exactly what the manufacturer agrees to do for the price you're paying. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
They made a manufacturing mistake and their job is to inconvience the customer as little as possible. They screwed up, and they are in no way owed to profit of the prior transaction.
Really? This sounds like punitive damages to me. You want to own and use something that carries zero risk of defect, and should there be a defect, you want to be the one to profit from it. Say, for example, turning in an aging, worn, scratched product for a shiny new one, PLUS compensation for your inconvenience.
The fact of the matter is, the customer is nearly always expected to shoulder some of the burden. Consumer protection laws do not operate on the "inconvenience the customer as little as possible" standard. They expect the customer will expend some uncompensated time and effort in the process of having their issue attended to. They expect the customer will lose some beneficial use of the product while the situation is remedied. The higher the standard the law places on the manufacturer, the higher the cost that is passed back to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
I'm quite sure that performing a warranty repair comes close to ensuring the manufacturer has not made a profit on the unit that required repair. If there's a profit to be made by the manufacturer, it's by ensuring the cost of repairing their defective goods is less than the the profit earned on
all the goods they've sold, the ones that worked flawlessly as well as the flawed ones. They profit on the law of averages. The law of averages works great for most consumers, too - most of us will not need warranty repairs while we own those goods. The law of averages works very badly for those whose goods do need to be repaired. That's part of the gamble that is life.
You're free to buy products from manufacturers that have a better reputation for reliability. However, you will never find a manufacturer that is able to deliver
guaranteed reliability. And judging by the statistics, there are plenty of people who buy products with inferior reputations for reliability because there are other factors that they prize more. At the moment, I'm thinking of owners of 20th Century English sports cars.
