AppleCare+ for iPhone, iPad, iPod and Apple Watch Now Covers Batteries That Retain Less Than 80% of Original Capacity

[Berserker-UK]

The previous 50% was never a rule anyway. Apple were willing to replace batteries where the diagnostics said they retained more than 50% of the charge, but it was at managers discretion. Managers discretion replaced my iPhone battery at about 60%.

AppleCare/AppleCare+ has always been a cut above other warranties, but with this change I'd certainly recommend those who make even moderate use of their devices (those who usually need to put their device on charge every few days or more) consider it, as I'm such a user and I was well below 80% capacity after two years.

 

[budselectjr]

If I were to buy the expensive watch I would just insure it with someone like Jewelers Mutual and pay less than $200 a year in premiums. My Sea Dweller is only $130 a year to insure with $0 deductible.

 

[Medic311]

"The change applies to AppleCare+ purchased for iPhone, iPad, iPod and all Apple Watch models on April 9th, 2015 or later."

sweet. i just got an iPhone 6 on Sunday and bought AppleCare+ on Monday.

 

[Popeye206]

Batteries are one of the few technologies that are rarely covered under warranty beyond a certain timeframe (typically 1 year), due to how lithium technology works. Batteries will always deplete, regardless of usage. All manufacturers and all companies deem them to be consumable items.

Apple's updated warranty is actually a step in the right direction.

Well said... my take on this is they are trying to build value to Apple Care, differentiate themselves from competitors and reduce anyone's concerns about the batteries being none-user replaceable.

In general... a good thing all around.

 

[Joe Rossignol]

Just curious what the battery guarantee percentage is for iPhones and Macs with AppleCare?

It's also 80% now for iPhones (I've updated the article since you commented).

 

[keysofanxiety]

Well said... my take on this is they are trying to build value to Apple Care, differentiate themselves from competitors and reduce anyone's concerns about the batteries being none-user replaceable.

In general... a good thing all around.

Careful with that rationale Popeye, people hate it when you use reason to stop some Apple-bashing around here.

It's also 80% now for iPhones (I've updated the article since you commented).

Even better news! Thanks for the update.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

most people who bought the $17K Watch Edition and then the $1,500 insurance likely know how to manage money better than you ever will, which gives them the spending power to drop that on a watch and not even care. they're the type of people who will probably buy the next one when that comes out too

if anything, i bet they pity someone like you who whines on a macrumors thread about how expensive it is

I couldn't disagree more.

The $17,000 Apple Watch Edition has exactly the same computer and technology as the $500 Apple Watch. As that is the area most likely to go wrong, you are paying a premium of $1,460 simply because the case is made of a gold alloy instead of steel.

You would have to be a monumental fool to pay for such a stupid warrantee. Unfortunately, being rich is no defence against foolishness.

 

[BillyTrimble]

They must know something about this to proactively change the terms. I'm thinking they've analyzed or predicted the wear and tear yields or the failure rate of their batteries and are making sure they don't get a huge "BatteryGate" backlash a year after the Watch has been on the market.

Ahh... ConsipiracyTheoryGate.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Apple should offer AppleCare™ for Macintosh Portable and recondition and install new lead acid cells in their batteries! I've only found one service that does this, NiCd Lady in California, and it's a 5-6 week turnaround. Hard to find these batteries! And the Portable will not start without a working battery!

Or...they could just sell new batteries altogether with new cells. They are getting to find on eBay these days, too!

Sweet mother of all that's holy ... Looks like that battery weighs more than an iMac.

 

[BillyTrimble]

Anyone who pays $1,500 for two years of insurance for his watch is a fool.

I pity him.

And once again, whining. I don't think anyone who can afford the gold watch really need or wants you pity. And I'm sure they appreciate you calling them fools. I'll bet you yearn to have the money to be able to afford something expensive and then be "pitied" by someone.

 

[BillyTrimble]

Interesting they announce it 2 months after the watch release (so early adopters can't now buy it) .

You might want to get your facts straight before engaging in the favorite hobby of so many posters, that being apple bashing.

 

[wlow3]

most people who bought the $17K Watch Edition and then the $1,500 insurance likely know how to manage money better than you ever will, which gives them the spending power to drop that on a watch and not even care. they're the type of people who will probably buy the next one when that comes out too

if anything, i bet they pity someone like you who whines on a macrumors thread about how expensive it is

Actually, most "millionaire next door" types, you know, the neighbor you sneer at because he's a plumber but who owns his own business and has more money socked away than you'll ever have, based on studies tend to be frugal with depreciating expenses - they tend to buy their cars used, for example and put their money into appreciating assets - stocks,etc.; that's partly how they are able to accumulate wealth. That's called knowing "how to manage money." Most folks who started out poor and end with money stay frugal; they can't help themselves. The people you sadly envy, the Paris Hilton's of the world, don't need to manage their inherited pile; they do seem to need to medicate their insecurities by conspicuously consuming baubles. I guess it beats calling people whiners.

 

[DynaFXD]

I couldn't disagree more.

The $17,000 Apple Watch Edition has exactly the same computer and technology as the $500 Apple Watch. As that is the area most likely to go wrong, you are paying a premium of $1,460 simply because the case is made of a gold alloy instead of steel.

You would have to be a monumental fool to pay for such a stupid warrantee. Unfortunately, being rich is no defence against foolishness.

As a practice, I avoid all extended warranties. In the long run, I think you come out ahead that way. Having said that, I think the reason for the higher buy-in cost on the Apple Watch edition is that they offer to repair -OR REPLACE if they cannot repair- the watch for some deductible. The article doesn't mention what the deductibles are for the various damage scenarios. They are not all covered by the cost of the Apple Care+. Anyway, in some situation they could be handing you back a re-manufactured unit if you crush or damage your fancy watch. That's the reason for the higher coverage. It's important to know the deductibles to get a better pictures of the real value of the extended warranty coverage; it's not all just the cost of the coverage.

 

[kcamfork]

And yet here we are, with no one who purchased yet even out of the base warranty. Why are you complaining again?

I'm not going to argue with an apple apologist.

 

[darcyf]

Actually, everything I've ever heard from any consumer shopping expert says NOT to buy the extended warranties. They are a waste of money. I purchase everything with CC's that extend my manufacturers warranty by a year FOR FREE, so it costs me nothing.

The difference, in my eyes, between any normal consumer device with batteries (like a notebook?) and this watch, is that every Apple watch runs 24 hours a day, and with that known, Apple designed the watch battery to last up to 3 years. A notebook user, for example may use their notebook on battery 100% of the time, and others may use it on battery only rarely, so each battery will have a different life. If an Apple watch battery was at 50% health after 14 months, I would be upset, when it should be at 80% for at least a couple years. But if I spend more money (in addition to an already overpriced watch), they will cover my battery? That's my point.

Batteries are a lot like car brakes -- two cars with the same set of brakes can go for dramatically different lengths of time before having to be replaced. The myriad conditions and reasons behind what makes up the difference are too many to make perfect sense out of, which is why two people with seemingly similar driving habits can still have different brake replacement rates.

Apple expects the battery to go a thousand cycles and still keep 80% of its original capacity. That's what they designed the battery to do. But that doesn't mean the battery is absolutely going to do that. And no one can design a battery (yet) that can account for all the reasons why it won't.

Sorry, that's just the nature of the beast. Don't like it? Don't buy it. But at least you have the option of protecting yourself with an extended warranty if you do buy it.

 

[HenryDJP]

They should have been doing this in the first place.

Not to downgrade your post but come on, this same line gets a bit alarming. Ever heard of better late than never?

 

[Medic311]

I couldn't disagree more.

The $17,000 Apple Watch Edition has exactly the same computer and technology as the $500 Apple Watch. As that is the area most likely to go wrong, you are paying a premium of $1,460 simply because the case is made of a gold alloy instead of steel.

You would have to be a monumental fool to pay for such a stupid warrantee. Unfortunately, being rich is no defence against foolishness.

i respect your disagreement, but i defer back to what i said originally and stand behind it wholeheartedly. the Watch Edition was not targeted to Apple customers who spend their time dribbling complaints on Macrumors threads. the Watch Edition shouldn't even concern you, but you find it necessary to whine about the cost and the cost of the respective AppleCare+ insurance policy. why? let's get to the root cause of your disgust here so we can put it to rest.

 

[Medic311]

Actually, most "millionaire next door" types, you know, the neighbor you sneer at because he's a plumber but who owns his own business and has more money socked away than you'll ever have, based on studies tend to be frugal with depreciating expenses - they tend to buy their cars used, for example and put their money into appreciating assets - stocks,etc.; that's partly how they are able to accumulate wealth. That's called knowing "how to manage money." Most folks who started out poor and end with money stay frugal; they can't help themselves. The people you sadly envy, the Paris Hilton's of the world, don't need to manage their inherited pile; they do seem to need to medicate their insecurities by conspicuously consuming baubles. I guess it beats calling people whiners.

huh? who said i envy Paris Hilton?

you just pulled an epic fail straw man right there my friend...

 

[2457282]

Interesting they announce it 2 months after the watch release (so early adopters can't now buy it) .

I bought Apple Care for the two watches I bought. It is the first time I have ever bought apple care, even though I have owned almost every device Apple has ever made in its history. Now that I have the watch and see the quality and finish of the product, I am wondering why I even bothered. We shall see over the next two years, but so far the watch is holding great.

 

[rtr1985]

Would be nice if it applied to AC+ purchased on any iP6 and iPad Air 2 since launch rather than two months back. Weak sauce!

 

[wkadamsjr]

I couldn't disagree more.

The $17,000 Apple Watch Edition has exactly the same computer and technology as the $500 Apple Watch. As that is the area most likely to go wrong, you are paying a premium of $1,460 simply because the case is made of a gold alloy instead of steel.

You would have to be a monumental fool to pay for such a stupid warrantee. Unfortunately, being rich is no defence against foolishness.

AppleCare+ is also a physical damage warranty as well. For example, if you were to drop your $10,000 Apple Watch and crack the screen, damage the case, etc., you could essentially have a new one for $2,500. That's why the warranty is a different price for each version of the watch.

 

[rohitp]

It's quite likely that these Apple Watches will be worth less than the AppleCare price well before the end of the warranty period. These are Gen 1 products that will become rapidly obsolete as this tech evolves.

 

[darcyf]

I couldn't disagree more.

The $17,000 Apple Watch Edition has exactly the same computer and technology as the $500 Apple Watch. As that is the area most likely to go wrong, you are paying a premium of $1,460 simply because the case is made of a gold alloy instead of steel.

You would have to be a monumental fool to pay for such a stupid warrantee. Unfortunately, being rich is no defence against foolishness.

AppleCare+ protects against physical damage as well as extending the manufacturer's warranty.

You either not understanding this or not seeing the value in protecting your $17,000 investment is not the same thing as people who do understand it or do see the value being fools.

 

[sw1tcher]

So if I break my sport watch AppleCare replaces it for $69?

No. You first need to buy AppleCare+ for it at $49. And if you then break it during the 2 yr period, will have to pay $69 service fee to have it repaired (or replaced?). So you're really paying $49 + $69 = $118 to have your Sport watch repaired or replaced.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

They must know something about this to proactively change the terms. I'm thinking they've analyzed or predicted the wear and tear yields or the failure rate of their batteries and are making sure they don't get a huge "BatteryGate" backlash a year after the Watch has been on the market.

The thing everyone seems to be missing is that this is being applied to iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad as well. It has nothing to do with Apple's experience with the watch - it has to do with their experience over the course of years, with hundreds of millions of non-watch batteries. Insurance is a bet, and the person offering the bet isn't going to take a few months experience with a few million first-generation devices (none of which, outside of a testing lab, can be approaching 1000 full charge/discharge cycles), and extrapolate that to cover a wide range of products, unless they already have enough statistical evidence from those other products to back the wager.

Apple's "Gates" have not really been Gates. The original Gate (Watergate) brought down a U.S. presidency, and involved criminal activity. Apple's Gates are barely blips in comparison, and nobody's been charged with a crime. These aren't examples of the Emperor wearing no clothes, they're a matter of the Emperor wearing short sleeves on a cool day.