We're saying that's not true. If your band is connected to the watch and it's damaged, it's covered by your AppleCare+.
Once Legal signs off, they should update the T's and C's so that's clear and no-one can be denied their coverage.
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.
AppleCare+ and replacements of bands (Sport and Watch, not Edition)
- Thread starter fischersd
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We're saying that's not true. If your band is connected to the watch and it's damaged, it's covered by your AppleCare+.
Once Legal signs off, they should update the T's and C's so that's clear and no-one can be denied their coverage.
It stands to reason as the band that comes with the watch is sold as part of it and they are both sold as one single SKU that one incident would cover both the watch itself as well as the band. As to whether this extends to additional bands purchased separately that's debatable.
I suspect in reality if you go in to an Apple Store to execute one of your two accidental damage options as included under AppleCare Plus when they check your details and determine the band with the watch is not the one originally sold with it then that band will not be covered.
I suspect in reality if you go in to an Apple Store to execute one of your two accidental damage options as included under AppleCare Plus when they check your details and determine the band with the watch is not the one originally sold with it then that band will not be covered.
Please read the thread. We're not debating here. Apple Legal will confirm next week and likely update the T's and C's.
but that sentence continues to say "listed on your proof of coverage document". My proof of coverage document just lists the watch, says nothing about the band.
It says nothing about the charger, cable, etc. either but we know they're covered.
You may be right but as of now if you ask Apple you'll probably get a different answer every time.
Both Ryan in Warranty Policy and Misty in Agreement Administration agreed that whatever band is connected to the watch at time of damage would be covered.
Once Legal agrees, they should update the agreement to reflect this so there's no ambiguity.
And AppleSnitch, the alleged Apple Store employee who interestingly enough deleted all his posts in this thread, disputed what Ryan in Warranty Policy and Misty in Agreement Administration informed you. Until this is put in writing, the other member is correct in that you will get a different answer every time.
Yep. I'll get to "end of job" on this. The T's & C's in the AC+ agreement need to be updated to include additional bands being covered / whatever band is connected is covered. Secondly, Retail and AppleCare need to be in sync that one incident IS one incident, regardless of the number of components damaged. I'll be following up with my "local" (1.5hrs away) Apple Store as well as Agreement Administration that they're in sync towards the end of the month.
But you can't purchase just a 'watch'; you must purchase a configuration -including- a specific band. I purchased AC+, to protect this configuration. Maybe once I may need the watch replaced, the next time maybe the original band is damaged with it; each instance should only utilize one repair process.
No. That would be two incidents. You need to think of this as an insurance policy (which it really is). Each "accident" is a single occurrence. And, if you damage a band and it isn't connected to the watch at the time, that wouldn't be covered. The bands are not "serialized" that is, they're not considered an asset unto themselves. The watch is.
That being said, if you had an accident and the entire original box was "steamrolled" that single accident would have to replace everything in the box. Charger, watch, band, everything.
AC+ does two things. It extends your manufacturers warranty and it give you two accidental claims.
This thread was really intended just to notify everyone about these two topics that I'm going to ensure Apple gets clarified. Please put additional AppleCare questions to different (pre-existing threads ideally) threads.
Ryan did call me back today (a day late). He received confirmation back from Apple's Legal department that AppleCare+ will cover any accessory bands purchased by customers as part of their two accidental coverages, provided they're connected to the watch at time of damage. He said that they didn't volunteer to update the T's & C's of the agreement, as they felt it was sufficient.
Ryan agreed that the T's & C's are ambiguous on this topic and is going to escalate this with Apple management, but that he's really unable to do anything else, but make them aware.
Ryan did also confirm something else. He agreed that the watch is designed for a much higher rating than IPX7, so water ingress will not be covered by Apple's warranty, but would be covered under AppleCare+ as accidental damage.
Evidence of water ingress (as with an iPhone) will NOT be covered under standard warranty. There are water indicators inside the Apple Watch that retail employees will be able to see when they open the watch.
Ryan agreed that the T's & C's are ambiguous on this topic and is going to escalate this with Apple management, but that he's really unable to do anything else, but make them aware.
Ryan did also confirm something else. He agreed that the watch is designed for a much higher rating than IPX7, so water ingress will not be covered by Apple's warranty, but would be covered under AppleCare+ as accidental damage.
Evidence of water ingress (as with an iPhone) will NOT be covered under standard warranty. There are water indicators inside the Apple Watch that retail employees will be able to see when they open the watch.
I think you were trying to fish out words from him so he's resorting to his opinion. There will be units with manufacturing defects that lead to water ingress under normal usage and they will be replaced under the standard warranty, as retail employees will not be able to discriminate such defects from those deliberately taken outside the scope of the IPX7 rating.
That is your opinion. People can share that opinion and gamble that they'll be covered, get AC+ and have accidental coverage or play it safe and not subject their watches to undue water exposure.
Unless it's in writing that the water ingress won't be covered under the standard warranty, what Ryan told you was an opinion.
It's not even clear from T&C that any accessory bands currently on the watch would be covered under AC+ so that, too, is currently an opinion.
In both cases, we'll see how they play out in actual events when people take their Watches in for warranty purposes.
The accessories isn't an opinion, as he's stated that their Legal department confirmed that (wish he would have provided an e-mail to that effect so we had something in writing). The T's and C's don't cover this - which leaves customers in ambiguity. (if it's not in the T's and C's, policy can be changed without notice). Hopefully he's able to have sufficient pressure put on Legal, that they update the agreement.
The warranty doesn't say that water damage is covered. That should be enough to cause people to use caution.
But if it's advertised and sold with an IPX7 rating and it fails to live up to that rating due to a manufacturing defect, the warranty would then be expected to cover this.
Does the warranty say defective NFC, camera, etc. (or any hardware failure for that matter) aren't covered? Same thing.
It's good that you're looking into this, but you seem so fanatical about the topic that you're not using common sense.
I have a wee bit of background in the industry, so I have a fair bit of bias about how all of the big electronics companies do things - especially as I've argued against a lot of the restrictive policies brand managers tend to inflict upon the customers. Trust me, I wish it wasn't this way - I'd love to see Apple toss some of these policies out the window, but it'll also impact their bottom line (possibly significantly if there's wide-spread abuse).
(6+ years at IBM PC Company, 8+ years at BlackBerry).
Do we really need lawyers to get apple to stand behind their product?
From a guy that has seen Apple replace stuff that was 5 years old for free, this discussion seems to imply that Apple has completely changed their corporate culture.
From a guy that has seen Apple replace stuff that was 5 years old for free, this discussion seems to imply that Apple has completely changed their corporate culture.
They're already impacting their bottom line from lax Apple Store managers allowing customers to replace their iDevices with normal wear and tear (when AC+ doesn't cover cosmetic damage) or shady Genuises suggesting that they deliberately damage them if they desire a replacement. Or, rather, pass the cost to all customers in the form of higher AC+ deductible and OOW replacement costs. Other companies might be hard nosed about it, but there's no way Apple will deny a water ingress claim given the advertised IPX7 rating and their lax policies.
Apple makes so much money on AppleCare policies that never get touched, it's not going to raise prices to replace equipment.
False. They did jack up the AC+ deductible for iPhone to $79 from $49, and the increase in OOW replacement cost to $299 from however much it originally was ($179 I think) is substantially more than the increase in iPhone component costs over the years. So it was indeed impacting their bottom line.
Last edited: