Is it morally acceptable to abuse a generous returns policy?

[AFK]

only white supremacists use that return policy

what? LOL

 

[ignatius345]

Yup, and that's reflected in the price everyone pays. Fewer returns would make for a different calculation that would allow for the money that covers returns to be used for a better product at the same price.

Sure sure. Keep telling yourself that. Also, ExxonMobil is really working to save the environment

 

[CeleryMan]

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.)

Wow. You are toxic. You are exactly the kind of people I try to avoid in real life. So I will here, too. Good bye.

 

[LogicalApex]

"To be specific, the materials and components needed to make the iPhone 13 Pro cost $570. This estimate likely doesn't include other costs such as software, intellectual property, labor, and shipping."

Absolutely, but the majority of those costs are fixed. Apple doesn’t incur higher development costs or R&D costs or etc if they ship 40% more iPhones in 2022 than in 2021…

A deeper discussion of corporate finance is beyond the scope of my point (and behind the understanding of most here).

My point is simply that Apple is not in anyway guaranteed, nor required to, return a “savings” to consumers. If they are charging what the market will bear for their products any cost or operational savings they can actualize will be used to boost their profits.

It is faulty and warped logic to try and “save” a company money as a consumer. Your job is to protect your money and to let the company protect theirs. Capitalism 101.

 

[arche3]

It's like church people. They are always telling you what you are doing wrong.

 

[0423MAC]

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.

My post will go ignored, but this is basically it.

Apple calculates these things down to a science. The only way you can make an argument for abuse is that they play some sort of use/return cycle multiple times a year, but Apple will inevitably flag you so I can't imagine many being able to abuse it to that extent.

Don't worry guys, you aren't hurting your favorite computer company. There are more minor things we can waste our time complaining about.

 

[pshufd]

My post will go ignored, but this is basically it.

Apple calculates these things down to a science. The only way you can make an argument for abuse is that they play some sort of use/return cycle multiple times a year, but Apple will inevitably flag you so I can't imagine many being able to abuse it to that extent.

Don't worry guys, you aren't hurting your favorite computer company. There are more minor things we can waste our time complaining about.

Amazon has this problem in magnitudes over Apple and they manage.

 

[alphasports]

Apple calculates these things down to a science. The only way you can make an argument for abuse is that they play some sort of use/return cycle multiple times a year, but Apple will inevitably flag you so I can't imagine many being able to abuse it to that extent.

I returned 8 iphone 12's and I think 2 watches in 2020-21 and they're still shipping me stuff that I occasionally keep, no flagging yet (even tho I sort of expected it).

 

[arche3]

My post will go ignored, but this is basically it.

Apple calculates these things down to a science. The only way you can make an argument for abuse is that they play some sort of use/return cycle multiple times a year, but Apple will inevitably flag you so I can't imagine many being able to abuse it to that extent.

Don't worry guys, you aren't hurting your favorite computer company. There are more minor things we can waste our time complaining about.

Agreed.

 

[arche3]

Their policy is a loss leader. Any revenue lost is made back 10x by consumer confidence. Nothing to do with morality. Cold hard cash is their corporate policy.

 

[profcutter]

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.

Same here. Only time I’ve returned something to apple was when they were repairing my MacBook Pro, and the genius told me that since I was going to be out a machine for over a week, I should just get a new one and return it.

 

[Sanpete]

The number of variables to consider would be too difficult without the data and a strong marketing department. Costs to consumers might even go down with a generous return policy.

Price is still related to cost of product, a point many here are trying to avoid. It's a lot more likely the price will increase from returns than decrease, same as when the cost of other components goes up.

Sure sure. Keep telling yourself that. Also, ExxonMobil is really working to save the environment

Ha, more randomness. It's basic economics, so yeah, I'll keep telling myself that cost and price are connected.

If this really was a large scale problem for Apple, they'd change their policy.

Don't worry guys, you aren't hurting your favorite computer company. There are more minor things we can waste our time complaining about.

The point is that it's a problem for customers, who pay higher prices relative to the quality of the product.

the man was pointing out you did in fact say that society falls apart if people all act that way. and you responded to a person who you thought was acting that way. hence me saying "q the morality thought police who'll tell you that your kind is the reason society is falling apart".

I understood why you said what you did. It remains untrue.

Wow. You are toxic. You are exactly the kind of people I try to avoid in real life. So I will here, too. Good bye.

Wow. You take it hard when someone corrects your correction.

 

[arche3]

Price is still related to cost of product, a point many here are trying to avoid. It's a lot more likely the price will increase from returns than decrease, same as when the cost of other components goes up.


Ha, more randomness. It's basic economics, so yeah, I'll keep telling myself that cost and price are connected.



The point is that it's a problem for customers, who pay higher prices relative to the quality of the product.


I understood why you said what you did. It remains untrue.


Wow. You take it hard when someone corrects your correction.

You totally neglect the marketing aspect of the policy.

 

[AFK]

Price is still related to cost of product, a point many here are trying to avoid. It's a lot more likely the price will increase from returns than decrease, same as when the cost of other components goes up.


Ha, more randomness. It's basic economics, so yeah, I'll keep telling myself that cost and price are connected.



The point is that it's a problem for customers, who pay higher prices relative to the quality of the product.


I understood why you said what you did. It remains untrue.


Wow. You take it hard when someone corrects your correction.

did i hit my head and wake up in crazy town? still doubling down like a bad gambler. the man professes he understands yet i see no evidence of it.

 

[Sanpete]

You totally neglect the marketing aspect of the policy.

The same marketing principles apply with speakers, screen, processors, etc. The cost of components still affects price, or the cost of other components at the same price. Can't escape basic economics here.

did i hit my head and wake up in crazy town?

Ha, I'll resist giving the obvious answer.

 

[arche3]

The same marketing principles apply with speakers, screen, processors, etc. The cost of components still affects price, or the cost of other components at the same price. Can't escape basic economics here.


Ha, I'll resist giving the obvious answer.

Component costs are not marketing. You have that wrong. The cost to manufacture a device is not marketing. Regardless of manufacture cost marketing costs will not go down. For any industry.
In this instance apple is willingly taking a loss on potential returns. From loss of a full retail sale.. it's Called a loss leader. To manipulate customer loyalty. And thus achieve higher and repeat sales. The net effects is higher profits across the whole business.

 

[pshufd]

Price is still related to cost of product, a point many here are trying to avoid. It's a lot more likely the price will increase from returns than decrease, same as when the cost of other components goes up.

You don't know. And I don't see how you calculate that it's a lot more likely.

It could very well decrease.

 

[ultrakyo]

While it may be true that return policy exist in the states and some other countries, many others do not have such policy in place. So there you go first world countries taking benefit of the return policies while others not while paying the same price or more after import taxes etc.

 

[haruhiko]

Strangers on the internet gather together and collectively made a 13-page MacRumors thread just to justify their buying excess and return behaviour. This speaks a lot. Haha.

 

[IllIllIll]

The point is that it's a problem for customers, who pay higher prices relative to the quality of the product.

Unless you have evidence proving this, you're just speculating.

 

[LogicalApex]

Price is still related to cost of product, a point many here are trying to avoid. It's a lot more likely the price will increase from returns than decrease, same as when the cost of other components goes up.

It is almost as if you've read the most basic part of Econ 101 and failed to grasp the rest of it...

The "cost" of returns, whatever they are, to Apple are immaterial in relation to the price of their product. The market will bear a higher price due to the return policy than it would without it. No return policy or a stricter one means some buyers would be less likely to "try" a new product and in turn will buy less. That could be 5% of buyers, but whatever that number is Apple makes more money with the return policy than without it.

You'd be quite surprised to learn that your grocery store likely has a 30 day return policy too. Even though they can't re-sell that food at all under any circumstances. Does it get abused? By some I'm sure, but it is offered as it is more profitable to do so. You might get some guy abusing the policy, but you could lose a customer for life who buys an orange juice container only to get it home and find out it is already open who wants a replacement...

Hell, my Amex will give me a quick refund for ANYTHING I buy up to $300 per item for up to 90 days. A valid reason for a refund is the store, like Apple, has a 14 day return period and Amex allows 90. Amex offers this through their insurance division with the CC business paying premiums for it. It is still a profitable and actuarially sound product for them to offer. Why? It increases the chance I'll put that charge on my Amex and their profits increase.

Furthermore, you can't at all hypothesize that this costs Apple any serious amount of money. Returned devices can be sold as refurbished devices that still carry a sizable margin for Apple. They can be used to replace devices that fail under warranty at a lower cost than using a brand new device. And on and on. A lot of their "costs" dealing with these are likely very fixed as they likely use their existing repair system capacity.

If you'd like to understand how this works better take a Corporate Finance and Econ 200 level course.

 

[haruhiko]

It is almost as if you've read the most basic part of Econ 101 and failed to grasp the rest of it...

The "cost" of returns, whatever they are, to Apple are immaterial in relation to the price of their product. The market will bear a higher price due to the return policy than it would without it. No return policy or a stricter one means some buyers would be less likely to "try" a new product and in turn will buy less. That could be 5% of buyers, but whatever that number is Apple makes more money with the return policy than without it.

You'd be quite surprised to learn that your grocery store likely has a 30 day return policy too. Even though they can't re-sell that food at all under any circumstances. Does it get abused? By some I'm sure, but it is offered as it is more profitable to do so. You might get some guy abusing the policy, but you could lose a customer for life who buys an orange juice container only to get it home and find out it is already open who wants a replacement...

Hell, my Amex will give me a quick refund for ANYTHING I buy up to $300 per item for up to 90 days. A valid reason for a refund is the store, like Apple, has a 14 day return period and Amex allows 90. Amex offers this through their insurance division with the CC business paying premiums for it. It is still a profitable and actuarially sound product for them to offer. Why? It increases the chance I'll put that charge on my Amex and their profits increase.

Furthermore, you can't at all hypothesize that this costs Apple any serious amount of money. Returned devices can be sold as refurbished devices that still carry a sizable margin for Apple. They can be used to replace devices that fail under warranty at a lower cost than using a brand new device. And on and on. A lot of their "costs" dealing with these are likely very fixed as they likely use their existing repair system capacity.

If you'd like to understand how this works better take a Corporate Finance and Econ 200 level course.

It doesn’t need to take an Econ course to understand that the key is the return rate and if the abuse is serious. Hong Kong is a prime example that Apple chose to kill the return policy altogether and it shows that they saved much more than the extra sales brought by the return policy.

 

[LogicalApex]

It doesn’t need to take an Econ course to understand that the key is the return rate and if the abuse is serious. Hong Kong is a prime example that Apple chose to kill the return policy altogether and it shows that they saved much more than the extra sales brought by the return policy.

I believe the issue there was also fraud. Where buyers were buying genuine Apple products and harvesting the parts for sale on the secondary market then returning the products to Apple with non-genuine parts. But it was being done by large scale criminal organizations so you had millions in losses and not just one or two anomalies.

That’s a different problem than I was describing, but the core result you hit the nail on the head. Whenever the policy isn’t profitable for Apple they will alter course. No need for a buyer to protect Apple’s interests. They have a staff in place to do this already.

 

[haruhiko]

I believe the issue there was also fraud. Where buyers were buying genuine Apple products and harvesting the parts for sale on the secondary market then returning the products to Apple with non-genuine parts. But it was being done by large scale criminal organizations so you had millions in losses and not just one or two anomalies.

That’s a different problem than I was describing, but the core result you hit the nail on the head. Whenever the policy isn’t profitable for Apple they will alter course. No need for a buyer to protect Apple’s interests. They have a staff in place to do this already.

We all know that Apple is not a charity and they will cancel the policy immediately if it’s being systematically abused so that it touched their bottom line. So if you guys want to keep this return policy alive, use it wisely.

 

[LogicalApex]

We all know that Apple is not a charity and they will cancel the policy immediately if it’s being systematically abused so that it touched their bottom line. So if you guys want to keep this return policy alive, use it wisely.

It is also worth noting that fraud of that scale would lead to criminal charges in the US and attract the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies. I don’t believe that happens to the same extent in all countries.

Without those levers to catch and punish outright fraud I doubt we would have the liberal policies we have.

Even the Amex policy I quoted earlier, since it is done via their insurance division. Fraud against that policy is punishable by a mandatory 5 year prison sentence in PA if you defraud them.

A company like Amex or Apple are able to outsource the policing to the government who will pursue it without impacting the “cost” for the company. To the extent law enforcement can actually arrest and prosecute to act as a proper deterrent.

No one should defraud the company to abuse any policy. It shouldn’t be done and it should be punished. But a normal user who has buyers remorse. They should use the return policy without a second thought.