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.
Is Applecare a rip-off?
- Thread starter redryder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I completely abhor the utter dishonesty of companies when they claim you only get 1 year of warranty, despite a clear law that states you have at least two (in the Netherlands, although it is a bit more complicated).
But, it is not just Apple who does that, plenty of others do as well. That sucks and should be detested, but it surely is not an indication that they do not trust their own products. It is likely a, obviously, financial reason.
The OS is the best and the design the greatest. That's good in my book. Besides, all this thread requires is side-by-side reliability statistics of laptops and computers, across multiple companies, if you want to say something about Apple specifically. My money is on technology being a bit more vulnerable in these times, generally.
You may find a one year warranty abhorrent, I just find it indicative of whether I should buy a product or not (for the record, AppleCare makes me willing to buy the product). What I find abhorrent is a third party trying to demand that two parties set terms of their agreement (i.e., the minimum duration of a warranty) when the third party should, in reality, have NO SAY in the agreement. We must understand that forcing others to do what we want them to do is not a valid reason for forcing them to do something, even if it seems like it is achieving some greater objective. Force is like a sword. You don't swing it at someone unless you are certain about being right; otherwise, you are responsible for the consequences if wrong.
I didn't say I find 1 year warranty abhorrent. I said companies lying about the duration of the warranty is detestable.
Companies actually have no say in it, the duration is set by law.
Actually EU law which talks about quality of goods is there because the consumer is in a weak position. There is no realistic way for consumers to negotiate individual terms with big companies, and they almost all offer a one year warranty on computers, so the law steps in.
There is a big difference between a warranty and a term in the contract- the law inserts a term in the contract of sale, it does not technically impose a warranty. In the EU (at least in all the country laws I am aware of) warranties are in addition to statutory rights. Any company can offer a warranty of whatever length it likes, but no warranty is required by law.
This is literally quoted from consuwijzer.nl, a Dutch site about your consumer rights: "Volgens de wet hebt u altijd recht op een product van goede kwaliteit. In de wet staat dat een product deugdelijk moet zijn. Is het product niet goed? Dan hebt u recht op een gratis reparatie, of een nieuw product."
You can run a translator over it, but it says literally that 'according to the law you have the right to a product of good quality... if it is not you have a right to a free of charge repair, or a new product'.
That sounds to me like it is required by law.
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
That law is not a warranty, technically speaking. Apple has no choice but to follow that law, either by talking to a consumer amicably or in a court. That law is a statutory right and is implied into the contract.
AppleCare is a warranty in addition to this term. I know the Apple UK terms and conditions state something along the lines of this does not affect your statutory rights, I guess your's say similar. No company has to offer any kind of warranty if they don't want to, that is not what the law says. Apple offering one year AppleCare is not illegal, the law from above is still there.
We are getting a bit legalese here, but I want to say it's good you know about this stuff, and it is often not wroth bothering with AppleCare.
Last edited:
The consumer is only in a weak position only because the same policy of passing inappropriate laws is allowed for corporations as it is for consumers (i.e., the only reason corporations are in the stronger position is because they can buy their way whereas consumers have to organize to get it). In any event, just because one side does it does not give an excuse to the other side to also act inappropriately (please see the "they do it too" fallacy). Passing more and more laws doesn't solve the underlying problems with the system that your post doesn't even acknowledge exist. The problem is that the laws are based upon desire, but reality is not so simple to permit us to use force to get others to do what we desire. We are constantly under constraints that we don't desire to be under. The proper solution is to learn to operate under those constraints in constructive fashion. Forcing others to do what you want is not a constructive approach nor a justified one.
What I meant to say was the consumer would be in a weak position if there were no consumer laws, it would be hard to influence big companies. Actually, because of the laws the consumer is in a very strong position in the UK (and EU).
The point is I can walk into an Apple store (without AppleCare) and know there is a very good chance that I will end up with a free repair, even if it takes a while to get it. When my broadband company raised their prices in the middle of my contract I phoned them up and despite a term saying "we can raise prices with 28 days notice" I got them to refund me because they can't do that. A shop can't just tell me to talk to the manufacturer if there is a fault. If I buy online and I open the packaging I can still return the goods no matter what the seller says. If I buy on credit card I can even go after the creditor if goods are faulty!
There is no way I would want to give these rights up. I don't mind paying higher prices here (VAT etc) because of the strength of my consumer rights. I was shocked to learn that Apple sells 3rd party items online "as is"! That seems so out of date, "as is" has no real legal standing here. Some people may see it as government meddling, but I think it is great for consumers.
They aren't rights. They are just unjustified force by any other name and just as revolting no matter what you call them.
In any event, you are missing the point. What if Apple came up with a way to determine based upon available data at time of manufacture about the probability of future failure of a given computer? If we didn't have third parties butting into the business of those who are attempting to constructively associate, Apple could offer computers that are "most likely" to suffer one or more failures within a given period of time at a 30% discount and with a 90-day warranty, computers that are "more likely" to suffer one or more failures within a given period of time at a 20% discount and with a six month warranty, computers of "average reliability" could be offered at the standard price with a 1-year warranty, computers that are "less likely" to suffer one or more failures within a given period of time at a 10% increase and 3-year warranty, computers that are "least likely" to suffer one or more failures within a given period of time at a 20% increase and 5-year warranty and still offer the refurbished units with the 10% discount and 1-year warranty. You haven't offered a reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It would actually cut costs across the entire line of Macs. Right now, this data is useless to Apple, so they don't even try to obtain it. If there are too many quality problems at a given time, they just raise the cost of AppleCare. Is this what you really want?
I see no reason why they should be revolting. They are fantastic and I use consumer law whenever I need it.
I don't care that much how much Apple charge for AppleCare. I don't need to buy it when the law does the job just fine. I'd rather pay slightly more for Macs and keep my consumer rights than save a little and lose them.
If AppleCare was 5% of the price I'd do it for convenience. At the moment I'd rather have a bit of persistence and get repairs for free instead of bothering with extended warranties.
Yeah, I'm aware that the US, UK laws are different; however, please note that this is not the point. The reader is being asked to distinguish between justified and unjustified kinds of force. Current governments pass laws on basis of legislative desire (do you pass this law?), but this isn't a justifiable way to resort to force. If you envy your neighbor's car, should you be allowed to take it for a spin just because you or someone with power wants you to be able to? Obviously NOT.
So basically, if it is to your benefit, who cares whose detriment it is to? Maybe you are just not self-aware of this own non-constructive way of doing things. That's what I'd have to assume if I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Apple had to repurchase the 27in imac in late 2009 to avoid a pr problem. They didn't do that here in the U.S.
Not quite. I don't need feel the need for AppleCare thanks to the law, so I don't care how much it costs. If other people want it they can assess the value for money, if they don't think it is worth it they should vote with their feet.
You may see it as unjustified force, but clearly the UK (+EU) philosophy is different to the US. Consumer protection is just that- to protect consumers from unfair practice by companies. Consumer laws set the minimum standard companies must reach. I see no problem in forcing a company to sell me a device of "satisfactory quality" (as per the Sale of Goods Act). To me that is justified, and that is what I use if I have a fault with something I purchased.
Sellers aren't being forced to do anything unreasonable, I have no problem with current laws. I think they balance both parties well. To think we can drop these laws and consumers will rally together to get the terms they want is unrealistic.
Was it like that little girl whose iPod caught fire and Apple asked her to sign a NDA?! That request backfired hugely and caused a PR problem!
I have a MINI Cooper and run a UK based MINI forum so I have been "taught" a little about the UK and EU (lived in Germany for 7 years) laws. The difference is that their government actually works to protect the citizens rather than the corporations. There is nothing wrong with their government forcing Apple, or any company, to back their product. I actually wish that our country would do the same but instead we get usless things like the Magnuson Moss Act
that is basically as worthless as the paper it is printed on. The government should work for the people, not the other way around.
As for the rest of what you wrote, I don't see that in his posts. He is simply saying that he avoids AppleCare because his government can help him enforce the required warranty in his country. There might have been a bit of a misunderstanding there as the language differs a bit as well.
I'm glad the OP created this thread. I've owned two Macs since 1996 and never bought AppleCare and never experienced any hardware problems with those computers, so I probably would not have considered buying it for my new machine when the iMacs are refreshed (hopefully) this year.
But after seeing the number of posts in favor of it from people who have owned machines much younger than my iMac G4, I likely will buy it ... Also, thanks to those who noted that the education storel includes a warranty discount. I wasn't aware of that.
Now ... when I buy my wife an iPad 2 when I get my iMac ... would people recommend AppleCare for that, as well?
But after seeing the number of posts in favor of it from people who have owned machines much younger than my iMac G4, I likely will buy it ... Also, thanks to those who noted that the education storel includes a warranty discount. I wasn't aware of that.
Now ... when I buy my wife an iPad 2 when I get my iMac ... would people recommend AppleCare for that, as well?
Citizens and corporations should be on equal footing. Why do you think citizens or buyers should be able to force corporations or sellers to sell under duress? Would you like it if corporations or sellers forced citizens or buyers to buy under duress? If you wouldn't like one, you shouldn't tolerate the other. Perceptions need to shift on this matter instead of the same lame argument that corporations are in a powerful position over consumers and consumers should be able to take a swing at them (which is the "them too" fallacy, even if true). Bottom line: Fix the laws that are wrong, don't get laws on your side just because you can. If you do what corporations do back, you are still wrong in the end anyway.I have a MINI Cooper and run a UK based MINI forum so I have been "taught" a little about the UK and EU (lived in Germany for 7 years) laws. The difference is that their government actually works to protect the citizens rather than the corporations. There is nothing wrong with their government forcing Apple, or any company, to back their product. I actually wish that our country would do the same but instead we get usless things like the Magnuson Moss Act
that is basically as worthless as the paper it is printed on. The government should work for the people, not the other way around.
As for the rest of what you wrote, I don't see that in his posts. He is simply saying that he avoids AppleCare because his government can help him enforce the required warranty in his country. There might have been a bit of a misunderstanding there as the language differs a bit as well.
But they are not anywhere close to equal footing even here in the USA. When was the last time that you were able to walk into congress and leverage anything in your favor? Companies do it all the time to get what they want and we, the tax payers, pay the price in the long run. In a perfect world I would totally understand but sadly that world does not exist. So, if you have laws that protect you then you should be able to leverage when you need to. Besides, Apple knows those laws going into the country and they have a choice to sell or not sell there so clearly they aren't bothered by them. I see nothing wrong with their consumer laws as they work well to protect people and as I posted, we have them here as well The difference? Theirs work and ours do not.
Indeed they could have refunded her for the device that could have killed her and her father. But sign a gag order?
Nobody is forcing them to sell, and certainly not under duress.
Simply, there is no way I'd want to lose the laws that help put me on a more equal footing with retailers. US consumers get a really bad deal compared to those in the EU, and having a lack of consumer protection in the US hasn't caused buyers to come together and fight the power! You still have "as is" selling and 90 day warranties are really common, we haven't had that since the 70s. I love not having to spend £200 on AppleCare to get a product to last how long it should.