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 it morally acceptable to abuse a generous returns policy?
- Thread starter agent mac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple punished Hong Kong where everyone and their dog just likes to flip everything. Shoes, phones, Watch, everything.
I don't like sticking my nose into these arguments, but this rubbed me the wrong way. You are one of the more vocal ones in this thread pushing your moral philosophy on others. Yet when someone points it out, you say you did not say it. Well, unless I misread your post, you definitely said it above (in bold).
Here in Hong Kong, I've seen how Apple keep narrowing the policies, because of the people who buy iPhones and resell immediately for higher prices. They've abused policies and eventually all the customers are the ones who must accept the consequences.
Recently, Apple in Hong Kong has banned gift cards for buying iPhone 13 Pro and Pro Max, because some people buy iPhones and resell immediately, using bots and programs for the reserve system on Apple Online Store. Using bots has potential leak of credit card informations, so they instead buy gift cards as a payment method. It's assumed Apple may want to stop the acts of people resell iPhones in higher prices causing normal customers can't get the iPhones, so they just simply ban gift cards paying for iPhone 13 Pro and Max. However, because the government has issued a HKD5000 (USD 640) consumption voucher for the citizens to buy anything, must be paid by electronic channels like a debit card, or contactless payment. So customers uses the voucher to buy Apple gift cards wanting to buy iPhones. Then, Apple banned gift cards, their money can't be returned too. We don't know if Apple would eventually cancel gift cards here. See, how abusing the policy might affect other customers?
Recently, Apple in Hong Kong has banned gift cards for buying iPhone 13 Pro and Pro Max, because some people buy iPhones and resell immediately, using bots and programs for the reserve system on Apple Online Store. Using bots has potential leak of credit card informations, so they instead buy gift cards as a payment method. It's assumed Apple may want to stop the acts of people resell iPhones in higher prices causing normal customers can't get the iPhones, so they just simply ban gift cards paying for iPhone 13 Pro and Max. However, because the government has issued a HKD5000 (USD 640) consumption voucher for the citizens to buy anything, must be paid by electronic channels like a debit card, or contactless payment. So customers uses the voucher to buy Apple gift cards wanting to buy iPhones. Then, Apple banned gift cards, their money can't be returned too. We don't know if Apple would eventually cancel gift cards here. See, how abusing the policy might affect other customers?
Last edited:
I have returned something to Apple within 14 days one time: I bought AirPods, the first ones. I put them in, I wasn't much impressed with the sound, but they were great in that-- what's that, it fell out of my ear! I tried to force it in more. 20 seconds later, plop, out of the other ear. I listened to them the next day, tried something to get it tighter, thought I had it, and plop, it bounced on the wooden floor and went under the sofa. My left ear canal just wouldn't keep it in. A little bigger than normal, I guess. I brought it back. Felt guilty for having a big ear canal. They refunded the money anyway. Think they cleaned it off and put it back in the case? I dunno. But they wouldn't have had a possible buy any other way. I had a nice, expensive wired headphone. I wasn't sold on AirPods. But I bought them, knowing that, if they didn't sound good enough, back it goes. Well, what happened surprised me. I had no ideas my ear canal was so big! I later bought wired Powerbeats, then the wireless beats, and now I'm switching to the Beats fit things, with a little wing that holds it in. If it doesn't work...
Whoa, no one is justifying crime. Unlike climate change, crime is committed on small scales and has a personal and preventable impact on the victims. Statistically speaking climate change cannot be solved or caused by individuals. Yes we are all responsible, but that doesn’t mean we have personal responsibility. Modernization and culture of our race led to climate change, not individual criminal choices.
It’s a societal issue, not a personal one and mixing that up is harmful to the cause of reversing it. If we want to make a difference on climate change then we need to forget trying to solve it alone—that only absolves us from guilt while doing far less than enough to fix the problem—we need instead to be active politically so that we let our elected officials know how serious we are about it.
Personal responsibility is super important in so many things, but it doesn’t really apply to global crises 200 years in the making.
totally get what you‘re saying here. Over the last 30 years of buying Apple products I have returned exactly 1 item and that was because it was defective… I’ve never wanted to return anything I’ve bought and it has never occurred to me to try before you buy… The Apple returns department must be a very oiled machine that’s for sure, I imagine a lot of those machines become ‘refurbished stock’ I guess… anyway, I wonder what percentage of buyers are recidivist returner? It might just be youtube ‘testers’ giving the impression that this is more wide spread then is really is… In the instance I experienced, it was very reassuring to know that the return process was so easy and straightforward… I can’t think of another company that offers such easy of return, DHL are a great partner for Apple in this part of the world…
You misread it. The then part of an if-then only applies when the if part is true. Is it? Does everyone think as the person I was referring to thinks? (No. Thankfully.)
I didn't mention morality, only the consequences of behavior, and I've pointed out some apparently self-contradictory views. If you disagree with something I've actually said, please share.
A lot of crime doesn't have any very substantial direct impact on individuals, such as shoplifting from a large chain store, or embezzling $.10 each from ten million bank clients. What happens if we don't discourage it, though?
I don't think I've suggested trying to solve anything alone. As with electing leaders (arguments that sound like like yours are used against voting), and solving large problems like climate change, many must each do their part. Which includes encouraging helpful behavior and discouraging harmful behavior.
There is no return policy in my ******** 3rd world country. I loved the return policy in the states. Bought 5 apple watches series 6 and kept one, returned the M1 Air after seeing my ipad have a better screen and the return policy was a godsend when i had to figure out my size with the braided solo loop. There should be a return policy everywhere. I don’t care if it is 7 days instead of 14 but it should be there. The world is a bad place where youre stuck with what you buy no matter what
I've done a ton of reading and even visited the apple store in person trying to decide between a 14" and 16". I couldn't make my mind up - I needed to try them both at home / office before deciding which to keep. That's what the 14-day return period is designed for. If I'm spending £2k+ on a laptop, I want to ensure I select the right one.
I of course am extremely careful with them - whichever one I send back will be perfect condition.
I of course am extremely careful with them - whichever one I send back will be perfect condition.
What does Apple DO with the returns? Does it resell them as refurbished, and if so are they actually replacing the case and the battery on them? If so that's a huge hit to the environment. If they are funneling them out to eBay or another reseller, I'd sure like a way to identify these items in listings (so I can snatch them up).
you've answered your own question, if you put Abuse and Moral in the same sentence, you know the answer... NO.
I have no qualms about this. If I’m spending as much as I am on these machines I want to ensure I have exactly what I want. Sometimes you don’t know until you have it in hand.
Last edited:
Blame it to your fellow Hongkongers who flipped iPhones like crazy and returned all to Apple when they couldn’t make a profit, even with rocks / Play Doh inside resealed iPhone boxes to defraud Apple.
Even with the no return policy now these people are still flipping iPhone 13 Pros, Apple Watches, iPad minis, but now it’s fairer since it’s at their own risk.
Last edited:
Yes, there's no free lunch. Every cost have/should have been considered. For all the returns, Apple probably included that overall cost into their pricing, and re-purpose those devices into their replacement/refurbished pool. A smart business will take advantage of that consumer-friendly policy to cut their own cost in-turn.
That's assuming people with normal return behavior. Unfortunately a LOT of people actually return fake or counterfeit products. Now that's truly a huge cost for any company, not just Apple, because that's literally theft. This is why in my country, return policy is not the norm. In general, you bought it, it's yours, non-refundable. For phones, most stores will force you to open and activate the phone on the spot to ensure no DOA, avoiding any potential returns and complaints. That's the "general policy." Exchange is normal though, eg exchanging a DOA product with another one. But returns for money back, very rare, simply because the opportunity of people scamming the system is so huge that it's a risk nobody wants to take.
So normal return, imo it's fine, and Apple already consider that as part of their operation. But abusing the return policy for theft, that's criminal, and in the end, consumers are the one paying the price by higher prices overall. Just like people scamming insurance companies, everybody ended up paying for it through higher premiums.
Corporations exist as big machines to turn resources into money. You can be sure Apple has calculated exactly the cost/benefit ratio of their return policy and will adjust it accordingly if it no longer works in their favor.
No, that's smart for Apple. Asian countries in general are high risk for abuses, and criminal enterprises are built on top of these theft and scams. There's no return policy in my country either, and despite my annoyance, I can understand why, seeing how we like to deceit our own friends and families. Stores here only offer exchange for DOA products, no refunds.
I once gave a MacBook Pro to Apple for service. Since it would take a week for them to repair and return it, and I needed a computer for work, the _salesperson in the Apple store_ suggested that I buy a new MacBook Pro and use it for that week, and then return it once I got my repaired machine back. This was _his_ idea, and I got the sense that this was not an uncommon practice for them.
If it's abuse, it's self-inflicted.
If it's abuse, it's self-inflicted.
Ethics, morality or even bad or good karma created in this matter doesn't harm Apple.
They have the resources, they don't lose anything. They are creating good karma with their policies.
It's all about the person and reasons behind how laws or opportunities are used.
Every situation different. The guy who buy a product and make video advertising, and returning his product (s) he benefit and give Apple free advertising by doing it. Probably no bad karma.
I would say this is a personal question of ethics, and karma will accumulate accordingly depending on intentions -each to their own.
Using favourable circumstances like Apple's to our winning, is under normal circumstances nothing unethical in that. If someone put it into a system out of some reasons, and make money on it, there's a question. Where's the limit goes is hard to say in general. Everybody have to answers to themselves. Karma, dharma do it’s job without judging ?
They have the resources, they don't lose anything. They are creating good karma with their policies.
It's all about the person and reasons behind how laws or opportunities are used.
Every situation different. The guy who buy a product and make video advertising, and returning his product (s) he benefit and give Apple free advertising by doing it. Probably no bad karma.
I would say this is a personal question of ethics, and karma will accumulate accordingly depending on intentions -each to their own.
Using favourable circumstances like Apple's to our winning, is under normal circumstances nothing unethical in that. If someone put it into a system out of some reasons, and make money on it, there's a question. Where's the limit goes is hard to say in general. Everybody have to answers to themselves. Karma, dharma do it’s job without judging ?
True story.
My wife used to work for a well-known outdoor retailer in NYC. I won't say who it is, but they're a Coop based in Seattle and their name rhymes with REI.
She'd tell me stories of wealthy NY'ers dashing into the store to kit themselves out for some huge trip, usually something cliched like Katmandu, and they'd buy several thousand dollars worth of expensive gear. Sleeping bags, tents, hiking boots, top-end technical base layers, crampons, ropes even, the entire works.
REI used to have a 'satisfaction guaranteed' policy, and you guessed it, if you weren't satisfied you could return the gear at any time in any condition. Now of course you always had the odd clown bringing back a pair of socks they'd worn every day for 5 years and saying they weren't satisfied (they got a refund, and it was worth it for the comedy alone). But when these adventure wannabes returned $5,000+ plus of gear they'd purchased for a single trip, over and over again, you can imagine the fury of the poor gimp who had to swallow their self-respect and refund some self-righteous goon who was full of smug knowing they'd "gamed the system". How heroic.
What people didn't really understand is technical gear like this often can't be resold and is sometimes even destroyed. The environmental impact is terrible and the entire process is wasteful and obviously hugely selfish.
The company actually changed its policy and so you can no longer return things unless there's actually a defect, and there's a limit on that.
Anyway, another example of terrible behavior leading to policy changes.
My wife used to work for a well-known outdoor retailer in NYC. I won't say who it is, but they're a Coop based in Seattle and their name rhymes with REI.
She'd tell me stories of wealthy NY'ers dashing into the store to kit themselves out for some huge trip, usually something cliched like Katmandu, and they'd buy several thousand dollars worth of expensive gear. Sleeping bags, tents, hiking boots, top-end technical base layers, crampons, ropes even, the entire works.
REI used to have a 'satisfaction guaranteed' policy, and you guessed it, if you weren't satisfied you could return the gear at any time in any condition. Now of course you always had the odd clown bringing back a pair of socks they'd worn every day for 5 years and saying they weren't satisfied (they got a refund, and it was worth it for the comedy alone). But when these adventure wannabes returned $5,000+ plus of gear they'd purchased for a single trip, over and over again, you can imagine the fury of the poor gimp who had to swallow their self-respect and refund some self-righteous goon who was full of smug knowing they'd "gamed the system". How heroic.
What people didn't really understand is technical gear like this often can't be resold and is sometimes even destroyed. The environmental impact is terrible and the entire process is wasteful and obviously hugely selfish.
The company actually changed its policy and so you can no longer return things unless there's actually a defect, and there's a limit on that.
Anyway, another example of terrible behavior leading to policy changes.
Last edited: