AppleCare+ "Cosmetic Damage" Conundrum

[Brookzy]

TL;DR:

• Hypothetically, could I get an AppleCare+ replacement for cosmetic damage on par with that in the photo below, despite the T&Cs saying otherwise?
• What the hell is "accidental damage" if it excludes cosmetic damage?

I've never bothered with AppleCare+, however with the rising cost of out-of-warranty replacements (now £325 for a 7 Plus!) I thought it was time to join the club.

My understanding was if I had AppleCare+, and I dropped my iPhone, and it caused a crack to the screen and some ugly damage to the shell (to the sort of standard in the photo below), that I could pay the excess fee and get a new phone.


(Note this is not my photo, it's just an example I found online to illustrate my point.)

But the terms and conditions specifically exclude cosmetic damage that does not affect the functioning of the device. That would imply the iPhone in the picture above, for instance, might be eligible for a screen replacement but certainly nothing else.

So, what is the point in AppleCare+? Because I cannot envision a probable scenario where I could accidentally damage an iPhone to the point that it doesn't function (except screen damage) - especially now it's water resistant.

Accidentally running your iPhone over with a car is basically the only accident that could stop it functioning.

If cosmetic damage is excluded, what an earth is included?

I would wager that the vast majority of incidents of damage to iPhones are caused by drops and falls, but a drop or fall would almost never stop an iPhone from functioning. It would just create cosmetic damage and perhaps break the screen.

So are the T&Cs overzealous, and in reality people get AppleCare+ replacements for cosmetic damage all the time?

Or, alternatively, is AppleCare+ enforced as per the T&Cs, thus making it largely pointless from an accidental damage perspective?

 

[maxsix]

Traditionally AppleCare has been a very good option. Apple's extremely high profits from the hardware they sell gives them plenty of extra income to cover any losses they might incur via a liberal replacement policy.

Yet that said, Apples extreme greed dictate they exercise even tighter expense controls. Therefore the latest revisions to AppleCare Terms and Conditions reflect that policy.

 

[Brookzy]

Traditionally AppleCare has been a very good option. Apple's extremely high profits from the hardware they sell gives them plenty of extra income to cover any losses they might incur via a liberal replacement policy.

Yet that said, Apples extreme greed dictate they exercise even tighter expense controls. Therefore the latest revisions to AppleCare Terms and Conditions reflect that policy.

Sounds about right - but how liberal are they these days with AC+ cosmetic damage replacements?

If I can't get a new iPhone for £79 after dropping my caseless 7 Plus from a fair height onto a concrete floor, I see no point in putting down £119 for AC+.

 

[Thor_1]

If the dented phone does not affect operation, why would Apple replace? If the dent was a hole, then yes

 

[rmeadejr]

I wonder what they will do with the scratches on the JB Plus. Apple did protect there butts by giving that warning.

 

[iphone1105]

i had AC+ on my iPhone 6, I dropped it, they charged me $45 for a screen replacement, sent me a new phone, thats how it worked for me, zero hassle at the time.

 

[dohspc]

Why not just drop the phone and break the glass. They will cover it under Applecare then.

 

[Nolander07]

With AppleCare plus you can replace a brand new phone if you pay the $99 (at least in the US).

 

[Brookzy]

If the dented phone does not affect operation, why would Apple replace? If the dent was a hole, then yes

Because it is advertised as a product that covers accidental damage, so if I accidentally damage my phone I would expect AC+ to cover it.

I wonder what they will do with the scratches on the JB Plus. Apple did protect there butts by giving that warning.

Yes this is something I am very interested in.

i had AC+ on my iPhone 6, I dropped it, they charged me $45 for a screen replacement, sent me a new phone, thats how it worked for me, zero hassle at the time.

Presumably you had some cosmetic damage to the shell of the phone though, and I assume that was still there after the screen replacement?

Why not just drop the phone and break the glass. They will cover it under Applecare then.

I know what you mean but I don't want to buy an insurance product that will require me to commit fraud to utilise it in the fashion I would like to.

With AppleCare plus you can replace a brand new phone if you pay the $99 (at least in the US).

But the T&Cs specifically exclude cosmetic damage. If in fact Apple do liberally dish out replacement for cosmetic damage then I will buy AC+. That is what I'm trying to ascertain.

 

[maka344]

If you drive over half of the device by accident then they'll replace it.

 

[JoeG4]

I'm not trying to defend apple, but squaretrade's warranty works similarly. If you drop your phone and break the screen but the case is only scratched, they'll only replace the screen. It's kinda lame, but replacing phones is probably kinda expensive.

 

[noobinator]

Find the tallest building in town. You know what to do.



Jk of course

 

[itsmilo]

Pools can be a real bitch in the summer if ya know what i mean

on a more serious note. The last time i got my iPhone replaced through AppleCare+ over the phone they didnt even bother to ask what happened. The person on the other end was like "oh i see u got applecare+ do u want express delivery or pick up in the store"

 

[BigMcGuire]

on a more serious note. The last time i got my iPhone replaced through AppleCare+ over the phone they didnt even bother to ask what happened. The person on the other end was like "oh i see u got applecare+ do u want express delivery or pick up in the store"

I've utilized AppleCare+ twice and this is my exact same experience. I walked out with a new phone within 10 minutes, they didn't even ask. And one phone was so badly damaged I didn't think they'd take it (I even told them I was ok if they didn't). No questions, bam, replacement. So, I get AppleCare+ even though I haven't used it in awhile.

Now that I'm on the Apple Upgrade plan, it's something I'll always have I guess.

 

[maxsix]

Sounds about right - but how liberal are they these days with AC+ cosmetic damage replacements?

I've found it depends on the Apple Store you visit. I'm lucky to have four local Stores. Three are very accommodating, one isn't.

If you drive over half of the device by accident then they'll replace it.

They measured mine, I misjudged and only drove over one third of it. But they were nice enough to replace if anyway...

Find the tallest building in town. You know what to do.

In San Francisco 50 story skyscrapers are easy to find. I tossed it off... but by the time the elevator ride reached the ground floor, a pedestrian had walked by and grabbed my smashed iPhone.

 

[lordofthereef]

I believe Apple has always specified this. I think the reasoning is that they don't want people scuffing the chassis and expecting a brand new device. At the end of the day it is Apple's call.

 

[fischersd]

Traditionally AppleCare has been a very good option. Apple's extremely high profits from the hardware they sell gives them plenty of extra income to cover any losses they might incur via a liberal replacement policy.

Yet that said, Apples extreme greed dictate they exercise even tighter expense controls. Therefore the latest revisions to AppleCare Terms and Conditions reflect that policy.

AC+ typically is actually an insurance policy and underwritten by an insurance company in each country that it's offered in. This really has nothing to do with Apple's revenue.

Edit: To all those suggesting that the OP commit fraud and cause damage to their phone. Records are kept...no doubt those that show a propensity for such damage may find themselves denied coverage in the future. (or charged a higher premium - as with any other insurance policy)

 

[maxsix]

AC+ typically is actually an insurance policy and underwritten by an insurance company in each country that it's offered in. This really has nothing to do with Apple's revenue.

True.

I never suggested otherwise.

But at the end of the day it's Apple's Public Image at stake. Always the master of spin control, Apple will deliberately break their own terms and conditions to accommodate customers, even if they are wrong.

Over two decades as a voracious consumer of hundreds of Apple products, I've personally witnessed Apple Store employees giving out an amazing number of free replacements even when clearly abused products were involved. It takes a lot of working capital to do this with regularity.

Given the obscenely high prices we pay, it's easy for Apple to make themselves look good.

 

[fischersd]

True.

I never suggested otherwise.

But at the end of the day it's Apple's Public Image at stake. Always the master of spin control, Apple will deliberately break their own terms and conditions to accommodate customers, even if they are wrong.

Over two decades as a voracious consumer of hundreds of Apple products, I've personally witnessed Apple Store employees giving out an amazing number of free replacements even when clearly abused products were involved. It takes a lot of working capital to do this with regularity.

Given the obscenely high prices we pay, it's easy for Apple to make themselves look good.

I would agree, though I've seen a trend to reign that in recently. I'm not one of the "if only Steve were still here" clingers. Voiced by our local Apple Store staff recently "We treat all customers the same, regardless of whether they're a new or long-time customer". A bit of a shock to those that have enjoyed some loyalty perks in the past.

 

[itsray]

its been like this for years. apple will not replace a phone for cosmetic damage. the only thing you can try is using one of your apple+ replacements and pay the fee

 

[Brookzy]

its been like this for years. apple will not replace a phone for cosmetic damage. the only thing you can try is using one of your apple+ replacements and pay the fee

But according to the T&Cs you can't use one of your two incidents for reasons of cosmetic damage.

 

[fischersd]

But according to the T&Cs you can't use one of your two incidents for reasons of cosmetic damage.

Not sure why you didn't actually post your own photo of damage, so everyone could know just how trivial this is? (the photo you used, I think most people wouldn't be thinking of using one of their 2 AC+ replacements on).

 

[itsray]

But according to the T&Cs you can't use one of your two incidents for reasons of cosmetic damage.

then smash the whole phone bend the casing so they cant put a new screen on and pay to get it replaced

 

[Brookzy]

Not sure why you didn't actually post your own photo of damage, so everyone could know just how trivial this is? (the photo you used, I think most people wouldn't be thinking of using one of their 2 AC+ replacements on).

Because this is all hypothetical! I'm debating whether to buy AC+. No damage has been sustained yet. And the photo was indicative of the level of damage for which I would probably get an AC+ replacement for.

 

[fischersd]

Heh...what a difference 12 days makes.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...t-scratches-watch-this.1998532/#post-23516292