Apple sent me 2 MBPs

[tigress666]

It's UPS' fault for not being able to deliver it to the correct person...right. It's also UPS' fault for delivering what Apple tells them to. It's not Apple's fault for not tracking their order.

He didn't say the address was wrong, he said UPS didn't deliver it to the right address. You've never had UPS or FedEx get the wrong place? You're right an assumption is being made here cause it was never specified if Apple put the address wrong or UPS fuxored up the address but it does happen. I've had that happen. I used to hve a long address and the company sending me gave them the right address but UPS apparently insisted they needed to put their own label on and their software cut off part of my address. They've since at least improved their system to accomadate long addresses. Not to mention you hear stories of idiot lazy UPS/Fed Ex/US Post Office employees who misdeliver stuff as well.

Of course, to be fair to UPS, I've also had it happen where it was my own fault and UPS managed to still find me. So, I've seen UPS have good service as well (not saying UPS is horrible, just saying they are prone to mistakes and there is nothign saying they could not have made the mistake. Any company is).

Anyways, even if it was a mistake on Apple's end, it is absolutely no excuse to rip Apple off.

And LMBO at the bold statement, there's people here that's been/are waiting for well over a month already for their product. You and your pedestal of how great Apple's C/S...Apple can send him a replacement within a day, give or take, yet they can't send a product to those that has already paid. Great C/S.

I was talking about this specific case. Yes, I do think them immediately sending out another macbook is good customer service. I don't know about that other stuff and I wasn't talking the CS in general, I was saying *this* incident was good customer service. You either need reading comprehension or you wanted to twist things around to prove your point cause it was very obvious we are talking about this incident and not Apple's CS in general.

And you can keep blabbering about how it's "people" like me that makes stores have such cynical policies, just don't forget to include yourself.

Ok, if you are going to make that statement, then back it up. It's people who take advantage when stores decide to give customers' a benefit of a doubt and then they abuse that. For example people who buy a dog leash, use it for a year, and then return it when it's used up claiming they weren't happy with it (our store had a stupid policy of no limit on return policy time. Yeah, that went away cause they were losing too much money to people who figured it was a free rental policy).

What about me contributes to stores having cynical policies when I am advocating not abusing the system? If I use an item for a year, I figure I got my use out of it and don't just return it when I don't need it. If I some how get too much product cause of a mistake, I return the extra product or pay for it (Costco accidentally gave me twice as many gift certificates than I paid for. Next time I was there I told them and paid for the gift certificates).

So... what am I doing that causes stores to decide people are not trustworthy?

 

[jajohns8]

Just because corporate accounting hasn't caught up with this now, doesn't mean they never will.

Thinking a random 2000.00 charge on your Visa card is an impossibility 6 months down the road, well...
(They can still hold you liable for the amount even if you cancel the card.)

Just sayin'.

 

[JajoPGH]

Um, no offense, but what, you lose 5/10 dollars worth of food (cause we aren't even going to count markup)?

Apple loses a lot more (and I don't think they get to put near as much markup on their products as restaurants do on food so they're losses are closer to the 2k price than your losses are to the price you charge).

You start selling 2000 dollar products and see if you still have the same mentality and then you can use yourself as a comparison.

are you serious with that nonsense? Do you realize that a 20 dollar dinner is more than likely more valuable to me than a $2000 laptop is to Steve Jobs? Jobs has billions of dollars. Perhaps to you $2000 is a lot of money, but to Jobs, it's nothing. It's very relative, but you are having a difficult time understanding that it seems.

 

[elpmas]

He didn't say the address was wrong, he said UPS didn't deliver it to the right address. You've never had UPS or FedEx get the wrong place? No. You're right an assumption is being made here cause it was never specified if Apple put the address wrong or UPS fuxored up the address but it does happen. I've had that happen. I used to hve a long address and the company sending me gave them the right address but UPS apparently insisted they needed to put their own label on and their software cut off part of my address. They've since at least improved their system to accomadate long addresses. Not to mention you hear stories of idiot lazy UPS/Fed Ex/US Post Office employees who misdeliver stuff as well.

Of course, to be fair to UPS, I've also had it happen where it was my own fault and UPS managed to still find me. So, I've seen UPS have good service as well (not saying UPS is horrible, just saying they are prone to mistakes and there is nothign saying they could not have made the mistake. Any company is).

Anyways, even if it was a mistake on Apple's end, it is absolutely no excuse to rip Apple off.

Try to return it. As along as you attempted to return the product, if they later question you, you'll be able to have evidence to prove that you tried. This probably won't be worth the hassle in the long run.

I was talking about this specific case. Yes, I do think them immediately sending out another macbook pro is good customer service. I don't know about that other stuff and I wasn't talking the CS in general, I was saying *this* incident was good customer service. You either need reading comprehension or you wanted to twist things around to prove your point cause it was very obvious we are talking about this incident and not Apple's CS in general.

How am I twisting it around, CS can be defined in various forms; I did not see how good CS made him wait 20 mins on the phone, trying to return their product.

Ok, if you are going to make that statement, then back it up. It's people who take advantage when stores decide to give customers' a benefit of a doubt and then they abuse that. For example people who buy a dog leash, use it for a year, and then return it when it's used up claiming they weren't happy with it (our store had a stupid policy of no limit on return policy time. Yeah, that went away cause they were losing too much money to people who figured it was a free rental policy).

What about me contributes to stores having cynical policies when I am advocating not abusing the system? If I use an item for a year, I figure I got my use out of it and don't just return it when I don't need it. If I some how get too much product cause of a mistake, I return the extra product or pay for it (Costco accidentally gave me twice as many gift certificates than I paid for. Next time I was there I told them and paid for the gift certificates).

So... what am I doing that causes stores to decide people are not trustworthy?

You are riding on a high horse at the moment, needless to say I don't know you and you don't know me. You shouldn't assume that I'm ripping or have ripped off Apple. First off, you support your own arguments off of your own scenarios that you give...kind of funny imo. Secondly, cynical policies arrive from trial and error, if you don't have a problem with the product then you should be fine, so why would you worry about such policies in the first place? (i.e. look at our laws). Thirdly, advocating online to not abuse the system is far from productive, if you really want to be productive, wear/hold a sign at your local Apple store and tell people your opinions, more or less force it on them.

 

[elpmas]

are you serious with that nonsense? Do you realize that a 20 dollar dinner is more than likely more valuable to me than a $2000 laptop is to Steve Jobs? Jobs has billions of dollars. Perhaps to you $2000 is a lot of money, but to Jobs, it's nothing. It's very relative, but you are having a difficult time understanding that it seems.

His pessimistic views about people will not change.

I've always thought people suck. This just proves my to my optimist side that my pessimist side is right about people. I guess I had more optimism about people than I thought to be amazed at how many people replied to keep the macbook pro.

Topic should lock now, the OP has already dealt with the situation and we're all speculating each others' ethical views.

 

[fredbene]

Imagine this if you have a company and that happened to another person. Would you like not to receive the money even you are very rich and so $2000 dollars would not make a difference?

Be Ethical!

 

[Kadman]

How long can you guys continue to beat this dead horse? This was over many, many pages ago. I think it should be moved to Wasteland or some other off-topic discussion area by now.

 

[elpmas]

How long can you guys continue to beat this dead horse? This was over many, many pages ago. I think it should be moved to Wasteland or some other off-topic discussion area by now.

Agree in full.

 

[tigress666]

are you serious with that nonsense? Do you realize that a 20 dollar dinner is more than likely more valuable to me than a $2000 laptop is to Steve Jobs? Jobs has billions of dollars. Perhaps to you $2000 is a lot of money, but to Jobs, it's nothing. It's very relative, but you are having a difficult time understanding that it seems.

So Jobs (let's forget this is Apple, not just Jobs) is rich so he should just give us all free laptops! He won't miss the money!

You do realize you are rich in comparison to some people. And I sure bet you hope they don't think that means it's ok to take advantage of you. I bet you are appreciative when some one is actually honest and tells you you gave too much change. Maybe you don't expect it but expecting dishonesty does not mean people *should* be dishonest.

Would you be so happy with the customer if they *didn't* tell you you gave them too much? Or some how you gave them too much change and they said nothing and walked off with it. Do you really think that is an acceptable way for your customers to treat you?

And you really think some one is entitled to the equivilant of 2000 dollars cause their shipment got a little late? Seriously? Sure, if it was Apple's fault maybe they should have given some compensation, but to pretty much give his laptop for free over some inconvenience? You sir, are very unreasonable in your expectations of what an inconvenience is worth.

 

[tigress666]

You are riding on a high horse at the moment, needless to say I don't know you and you don't know me. You shouldn't assume that I'm ripping or have ripped off Apple. First off, you support your own arguments off of your own scenarios that you give...kind of funny imo. Secondly, cynical policies arrive from trial and error, if you don't have a problem with the product then you should be fine, so why would you worry about such policies in the first place? (i.e. look at our laws). Thirdly, advocating online to not abuse the system is far from productive, if you really want to be productive, wear/hold a sign at your local Apple store and tell people your opinions, more or less force it on them.

And this is why we have laws about not stealing and killing. Because some people just view that as other people's opinions and shouldn't be something they have to listen to.

By your logic then, telling people that stealing (and killing) is wrong and it's just some one on a high horse telling other people their opinions.

Second of all, you still have failed to really prove how I'm contributing to the problem of retail stores being cynical that their customers are being honest. All you have said is that ethics is relative to who views it. Which, I agree, is true. But you still won't get me to agree that stealing or killing is wrong and I'll still view some one who views such as wrong as a very unethical person. And in my opinion, if your view of ethics badly affects other people (I don't care if it only affects you, shouldn't be law then), than that view of ethics (like it is ok to steal) should be illegal.

 

[SoCalRich]

How long can you guys continue to beat this dead horse? This was over many, many pages ago. I think it should be moved to Wasteland or some other off-topic discussion area by now.

Agree in full.

+100000000.... Hello people.... Hello.... It's over... This has been dealt with... Time to move on....

This thread is soooooo done and over.....

 

[Bill Gates]

This thread has shown me that the world is full of morally bankrupt, stupid people, but I already knew that.

 

[silexh]

This thread has shown me that the world is full of morally bankrupt, stupid people, but I already knew that.

Says Bill Gates...

For all others who are not involved with Microsoft: There is still some hope, there were many people with a more civilised and honest view in this thread, thank you all...

 

[ViViDboarder]

You are not actually legally required to return something you didn't order. You ordered one macbook pro so you paid for one. If both seem to have gotten to you you have the right to keep both.

Take a look at the "unordered merchandise" laws.


According to the federal trade commission "If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift."



http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro15.shtm



You don't even have to notify them that you received both.

That's actually really interesting... I had no idea. I was going to say you should definitely return it, now it's morally gray I think.

Exactly which law are you referring to? It was a simple shipping mistake. If Apple didn't go after the OP, then they would have gone after FedEx. And then FedEx would come after the OP. And I'm pretty sure their legal team is going to come out on top. Without even bringing the law into it, it's just being a decent member of society. But at least your honest about your dishonesty. And why do you feel the need to judge people based on their beliefs?

Maybe the protections outlined by the FTC in the link her provided... You read it?

You don't know a single thing about the law. I suggest that YOU get your head examined before you give another bit of false legal advice.

You read the link?


This is what the FTC says...

Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?

A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.

Q. Must I notify the seller if I keep unordered merchandise without paying for it?

A. You have no legal obligation to notify the seller. However, it is a good idea to write a letter to the company stating that you didn’t order the item and, therefore, you have a legal right to keep it for free. This may discourage the seller from sending you bills or dunning notices, or it may help clear up an honest error. Send your letter by certified mail. Keep the return receipt and a copy of the letter for your records. You may need it later.

Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?

A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.

Basically it wouldn't be illegal to just keep it. They suggest you notifiy the sender and try to remedy the situation, but you are not obligated to do so.

BUT... Just because it's legally within your rights doesn't make it morally right. Would you want someone to do the same if you had made a mistake like that? Likely not.

I think the OP did the right thing, but I also think it's best to pursue the situation as outlined by the FTC. Make an offer to return it but notify that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise. That way if they are trying to stick you with the fees for returning (they weren't in this case) then you can say "screw you. Your mistake. You either pay for it or I'll keep it".

 

[Bill Gates]

That's actually really interesting... I had no idea. I was going to say you should definitely return it, now it's morally gray I think.



Maybe the protections outlined by the FTC in the link her provided... You read it?



You read the link?


This is what the FTC says...



Basically it wouldn't be illegal to just keep it. They suggest you notifiy the sender and try to remedy the situation, but you are not obligated to do so.

BUT... Just because it's legally within your rights doesn't make it morally right. Would you want someone to do the same if you had made a mistake like that? Likely not.

I think the OP did the right thing, but I also think it's best to pursue the situation as outlined by the FTC. Make an offer to return it but notify that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise. That way if they are trying to stick you with the fees for returning (they weren't in this case) then you can say "screw you. Your mistake. You either pay for it or I'll keep it".

That paragraph has NOTHING to do with the OP's situation. He DID order the MacBook Pro; he contacted Apple due to a shipping problem and they sent another. He is obligated to contact Apple and from there it is at Apple's discretion what to do about it.

 

[nxent]

OK, new twist.

Apple must be full of idiots over there.

I checked my CC statement to make sure it was paid off since I discontinued it. They have refunded my credit card for the full price of the MBP (the card, while no longer in existence can be refunded but not charged).

I'd better get more than 25 ****ing dollars for this tomorrow.

lol... maybe they decided to give you a free laptop because of your honesty.
good call on trying to return it though. i'd email steve jobs to see what he has to say.

 

[BigWil254]

So, I ordered my new MBP on the day they were released (15" i5 with the HD antiglare) and when it got to my city UPS delivered it to the wrong address. I called apple and they said I could either have a refund or a replacement and I ordered the replacement. The next day UPS shows up at my house and delivered the one they had originally delivered to the wrong location. It was unopened so I opened it and have been very happy using it. Today UPS shows up again and delivers another MBP (the replacement one). I checked over my Visa statement and they definitely did not charge me twice. I am currently on hold with Apple, the wait time is 20 mins.

Ethical dilemma. What to do?

Keep That hoe! Make sure the first charge has posted and cleared. Then Close that account. And then do the happy dance you got over the big boys upstairs!

 

[elpmas]

And this is why we have laws about not stealing and killing. Because some people just view that as other people's opinions and shouldn't be something they have to listen to.

By your logic then, telling people that stealing (and killing) is wrong and it's just some one on a high horse telling other people their opinions.

Second of all, you still have failed to really prove how I'm contributing to the problem of retail stores being cynical that their customers are being honest. All you have said is that ethics is relative to who views it. Which, I agree, is true. But you still won't get me to agree that stealing or killing is wrong and I'll still view some one who views such as wrong as a very unethical person. And in my opinion, if your view of ethics badly affects other people (I don't care if it only affects you, shouldn't be law then), than that view of ethics (like it is ok to steal) should be illegal.

Wow you really did not read what I posted lmao. Go back and read the beginning of this thread. You might get a better view as to where I am coming from. And again this thread is done with.

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

Reading through this certainly is interesting...

I'm shocked by how many people on here are proposing their relative morals. "It would be wrong if you got the computers from a poor old lady, but Apple is huge so it's OK." "Apple makes so much money, they won't miss a $2k laptop, so it's OK." Etc.

What makes you think something is OK just because it doesn't hurt someone very much? If I steal $2k from my neighbor or I steal it from Apple, I'm still stealing. If I assault someone on the street and send them to the hospital with severe injuries or give them a minor bruise, it's still assault. While I will concede that there are varying levels of severity here, one can't justify theft simply because the recipient of the theft isn't affected much by it.

There are some situations where things are right in one situation but not in another, but this isn't one of them. Theft is theft. In this situation, I would have called Apple and given them 30 days to retrieve the machine at their expense, otherwise I would have kept it.

Even true situational ethics have some absolutes.

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

Kant had something to say about this. He states with his categorical imperative that the action that leads to most overall happiness is the ethical right one. If you are happier keeping the 100 than the other is sad you have a positive saldo (while the saldo when you return it is probably neutral). In this case the happiness of the person that receives the Mac is probably very happy while the people at Apple couldn't care less. Right decision would be to keep it (according to Kant).

I need to point out that this is an extremely poor representation of Kant's ideas and teachings about ethics. If Kant were on this forum he would rip you to pieces...

You were right about the "overall happiness". But then you didn't take it into account. Stealing that $100 might have a high instance of positive saldo to begin with, but the long-term negative saldo is going to be higher. "Overall happiness" is about the happiness level of your life as a whole. It's all about long-term thinking, while stealing $100 is a great example of short-term thinking. You might be happy to have $100 after you stole it, but you're going to be a lot less happy than you were before you stole when you're sitting at the police station because of your theft.

This is probably the worst application of Kant's teachings that I've ever seen... half of your premise is based on knowing what the other party is thinking, which you don't.

 

[yooper]

I'm sorry, but did you just tell him that the right thing to do is to return it? And may I gently ask, who are you to say what's "right"? He'll do whatever he wants. Just because in your eyes, it seems right, doesn't mean it is.

You have quite an ego...

Words of wisdom spoken so eloquently by someone who will surely make a negative impact to others during his lifetime

jaredm1 has an "ego" because he is a decent human being that would do what is right? Before you select such big words, you should first fully understand the meaning and the context of its use.

I read through your posts on this subject giving you the chance to redeem yourself but yet you continued to show pure ignorance. Unfortunately, your demeanor and thought process is so skewed that you will never truly get it.

You're an individual that simply cannot be trusted and will make excuses for your behavior throughout your life (blaming Apple for UPS delivering to the wrong address)? Not sure what your justification is for pocketing $100.00 from someone you saw accidentally/unknowingly drop it.

In your mind you will justify your dishonesty and actually believe you're right while hurting others for personal gain. When does the dishonesty stop and at what price?

If you decide to make another excuse for your actions and reply to this post on my behalf, save yourself the time as I wont wast any more of my time with a derelict.

What a life you must live.

 

[NateDogX]

This thread has derailed.

 

[macgeek18]

Try to let them know about you getting the original one,if they shrug you off and don't do anything about it them keep it,then at least you know you did the "right" thing.

 

[dacuba]

It's a difficult situation.. I'd keep it untill they discover I guess.. if Apple think they have the right to convert $ 1:1 to euro and therefor rip me off, I can keep their stuff related to someone's mistake. They are ripping me off all the time.

[/COLOR][/I][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Commonsensism: A version of the golden rule put into modern, non-religious terms that some people live by is, "Treat people the way you'd like to be treated". [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Buddhism: 560 BC, From the Udanavarga 5:18- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Judaism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 1300 BC, from the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Hinduism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 3200 BC, From the Hitopadesa- "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Zoroastrianism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 600 BC, From the Shast-na-shayast 13:29- "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Confucianism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 557 BC, From the Analects 15:23- "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Christianity[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 30 AD, From the King James Version , 7:12- "Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them."[/FONT]


I guess "when in doubt read the directions"... LOL... 'nuf said....

LOL, using religion to determine what is 'good' or 'wrong'. Next time you're going to try to prove when it's okay to kill someone for religion? God wills it!

 

[Bill Gates]

That's the way it should be. Thinking for myself is great but the basics were taught to me by my parents.

and I never said he did "steal" anything...



Well now THAT is a very different way of looking at this... It seems a little convoluted way of thinking but you certainly are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I would not want to waste my valuable time trying to "teach Apple a lesson by being strict with them and going to court if needed."

Like I said, total waste of my time. Much easier just to give them back the extra computer and move on with my life...



...and that my friend is why we all have a moral values system, taught to us by our parents, (hopefully) that defines and guides us as a human being and citizen of this world. I would like to believe that down deep, everyone really knows the difference between right and wrong. "The Golden Rule" serves as a basic moral compass for a lot of us. "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you." or from religions around the world since 3200 BC...

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Commonsensism: A version of the golden rule put into modern, non-religious terms that some people live by is, "Treat people the way you'd like to be treated". [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Buddhism: 560 BC, From the Udanavarga 5:18- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Judaism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 1300 BC, from the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Hinduism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 3200 BC, From the Hitopadesa- "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Zoroastrianism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 600 BC, From the Shast-na-shayast 13:29- "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Confucianism[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 557 BC, From the Analects 15:23- "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]Christianity[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,new times roman,times,serif] 30 AD, From the King James Version , 7:12- "Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them."[/FONT]


I guess "when in doubt read the directions"... LOL... 'nuf said....

It's funny how the "religion of peace" is not included in the above. Is your subconscious saying something?

Anyways, I just thought I'd poke a little fun since this thread really is just stuck recursing itself right now.