Is it morally acceptable to abuse a generous returns policy?

[haruhiko]

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.

It’s criminal everywhere in the world I guess. Not sure if anybody was caught though, especially if the purchase was not tied to an Apple ID and the buyer used gift cards or cash to buy the phones.

 

[LogicalApex]

It’s criminal everywhere in the world I guess. Not sure if anybody was caught though.

Yes absolutely. My wording was poor there. I wasn’t implying that it would be legal in other places, but more so that many countries likely lack the power of agencies like the FBI does in the US to fully prosecute organized crime.

 

[BluAffiliate]

iPhone 13 Pro has costlier components than the higher-priced Galaxy S21 Plus

The iPhone 13 Pro apparently has a higher build cost than the Galaxy S21 Plus.

www.phonearena.com

Lies. This omits so many costs. This is like saying that Coca Cola takes 1 cent for the ingredients to make - ignoring everything else.

Really cute watching people try to justify their actions with such arguments. If you're going to try to rip off Apple just do it, no one is going to stop you, and we'll get those costs baked into the price of the products... just don't try to make a moral argument of why it's justified. Bruh.

 

[LiveM]

Is it moral to charge £20 for a cloth

This is one product where the higher the price, the less demand, the easier it is to buy, and no-one suffers as it is an impulse buy that no-one actually needs.

 

[arobert3434]

multiple threads happening here -

1. morality of buying multiple mbps and returning one (cause you robbing others of getting one).
2. morality of returning cause you are needlessly aiding and abetting in climate change.
3. supply and demand. price apple charges is what apple can get away with and still be profitable even w/ all the inefficiencies in the system.

all 3 or more being conflated. #1 i can see ppl being upset cause it aint fair. #2 im too dumb to really know. but i hear not eating meat helps more than returning a mbp. #3 public company. i am a shareholder. apple will take action when it hurts their bottom line.

Sadly, most people on this thread seem to be overwhelmingly concerned with #3, worrying about whether Apple is making enough money and whether we might be hurting their ability to do so. Environment? Eh. Other people? Ha!

 

[Sanpete]

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.

That doesn't conflict with what I've said. The simple fact remains that the cost of the product to the manufacturer, including marketing and anything else, is a determinant of the price. It's magical thinking to imagine that costs to the manufacturer aren't reflected in pricing or value.

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

It's basic economics, normally not controversial, that cost and price are connected. If you want proof of that simple idea, consult an econ text.

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's almost as if you haven't read the thread. This was hashed out earlier. The claim, again, is *not* that a generous return policy isn't advantageous to Apple. It is. It increases sales, and therefore profits. Having a more expensive screen than a cheaper model does too. But both have a cost, which is necessarily reflected in the price. If you'd like to understand that better, try just thinking about until you do. It's not that hard to grasp.

Sadly, most people on this thread seem to be overwhelmingly concerned with #3, worrying about whether Apple is making enough money and whether we might be hurting their ability to do so. Environment? Eh. Other people? Ha!

Again, it's not about the harm to Apple but the effect on the customers through passing costs along.

 

[PerfumedPonce]

I would abuse the policy until I found what I wanted because as soon as your warranty expires Apple no longer care about you.

 

[killhippie]

Apple are aware of those that send to many items back and there is a black list of sorts, a friend ended up being told she could not return more than two iPhones after going though seven looking for perfection. There was a guy on here that returned 17 I think, I imagine he wont be allowed to do that now even if he could find that many, eventually Apple like Amazon etc get fed up of customers abusing the system and cut that route to keep returning things for the sake of it off I imagine.

 

[arvinsim]

They are a trillion dollar company. Save your sympathy for something else.

 

[Abazigal]

It’s situations like this where I wouldn’t be against businesses firing their worst customers in a sense. Ie: blacklisting people who are clearly abusing a generous return policy and bar them from using their services thereafter so they don’t spoil the market for everyone else.

 

[arche3]

That doesn't conflict with what I've said. The simple fact remains that the cost of the product to the manufacturer, including marketing and anything else, is a determinant of the price. It's magical thinking to imagine that costs to the manufacturer aren't reflected in pricing or value.


It's basic economics, normally not controversial, that cost and price are connected. If you want proof of that simple idea, consult an econ text.


It's almost as if you haven't read the thread. This was hashed out earlier. The claim, again, is *not* that a generous return policy isn't advantageous to Apple. It is. It increases sales, and therefore profits. Having a more expensive screen than a cheaper model does too. But both have a cost, which is necessarily reflected in the price. If you'd like to understand that better, try just thinking about until you do. It's not that hard to grasp.


Again, it's not about the harm to Apple but the effect on the customers through passing costs along.

Umm.. you pretty much proved my point. Since Apple includes all factors into their pricing. And that their generous return policy makes higher sales. Is your argument then that we should try to limit buying apple items so they cost less? Or is your argument we should not return items to make them cost less?

 

[bevsb2]

While it is unlikely that Apple would lower prices, robust sales and lack of excessive, inappropriate returns may keep Apple from raising prices. This would be good for the environment and all of us going forward.

 

[LogicalApex]

Lies. This omits so many costs. This is like saying that Coca Cola takes 1 cent for the ingredients to make - ignoring everything else.

Really cute watching people try to justify their actions with such arguments. If you're going to try to rip off Apple just do it, no one is going to stop you, and we'll get those costs baked into the price of the products... just don't try to make a moral argument of why it's justified. Bruh.

I’m probably dropping out of this discussion as it is like talking to a computer user with no programming experience about computer programming. Yet the user is constantly making declarations of fact in areas they know little about.

I don’t want to delve deep into Cost Accounting here as, again, the discussion will get too far in the weeds. But, let’s take your Coca-Cola example for a simple discussion point… How does Coca-Cola figure out the cost of a bottle of coke when you have a shift supervisor overseeing a plant that can make up to 100K bottles of various fizzy drinks per shift? How does it then account for his cost on a day where they had a problem that caused the line to stop and drop production from 100K bottles that shift to 20K bottles? Obviously the ”cost” of this employee in relation to a bottle has increased due to the lowered output. Do you raise the cost of coke to reflect this? Do you ignore his “cost” when factoring in your cost of making coke?

Apple has a team of MBAs who have their cost structure well understood...

Let’s take another example since so many, like you, seem hell bent on “lower returns” == “lower cost for consumers”… Apple dropped Intel from their products and and have actualized very real cost savings doing so as they are able to spread the R&D and other costs from their Apple Silicone across their entire product line and cut out a third party supplier for one of the most expensive components in their computers. Yet Mac prices with Apple Silicone are higher than then Intel models they are replacing… Why isn’t Apple passing this cost savings onto consumers? ?

 

[pshufd]

I’m probably dropping out of this discussion as it is like talking to a computer user with no programming experience about computer programming. Yet the user is constantly making declarations of fact in areas they know little about.

I don’t want to delve deep into Cost Accounting here as, again, the discussion will get too far in the weeds. But, let’s take your Coca-Cola example for a simple discussion point… How does Coca-Cola figure out the cost of a bottle of coke when you have a shift supervisor overseeing a plant that can make up to 100K bottles of various fizzy drinks per shift? How does it then account for his cost on a day where they had a problem that caused the line to stop and drop production from 100K bottles that shift to 20K bottles? Obviously the ”cost” of this employee in relation to a bottle has increased due to the lowered output. Do you raise the cost of coke to reflect this? Do you ignore his “cost” when factoring in your cost of making coke?

Apple has a team of MBAs who have their cost structure well understood...

Let’s take another example since so many, like you, seem hell bent on “lower returns” == “lower cost for consumers”… Apple dropped Intel from their products and and have actualized very real cost savings doing so as they are able to spread the R&D and other costs from their Apple Silicone across their entire product line and cut out a third party supplier for one of the most expensive components in their computers. Yet Mac prices with Apple Silicone are higher than then Intel models they are replacing… Why isn’t Apple passing this cost savings onto consumers? ?

The educated person knows what he doesn't know. The uneducated person thinks he knows everything.

 

[AFK]

I’m probably dropping out of this discussion as it is like talking to a computer user with no programming experience about computer programming. Yet the user is constantly making declarations of fact in areas they know little about.

I don’t want to delve deep into Cost Accounting here as, again, the discussion will get too far in the weeds. But, let’s take your Coca-Cola example for a simple discussion point… How does Coca-Cola figure out the cost of a bottle of coke when you have a shift supervisor overseeing a plant that can make up to 100K bottles of various fizzy drinks per shift? How does it then account for his cost on a day where they had a problem that caused the line to stop and drop production from 100K bottles that shift to 20K bottles? Obviously the ”cost” of this employee in relation to a bottle has increased due to the lowered output. Do you raise the cost of coke to reflect this? Do you ignore his “cost” when factoring in your cost of making coke?

Apple has a team of MBAs who have their cost structure well understood...

Let’s take another example since so many, like you, seem hell bent on “lower returns” == “lower cost for consumers”… Apple dropped Intel from their products and and have actualized very real cost savings doing so as they are able to spread the R&D and other costs from their Apple Silicone across their entire product line and cut out a third party supplier for one of the most expensive components in their computers. Yet Mac prices with Apple Silicone are higher than then Intel models they are replacing… Why isn’t Apple passing this cost savings onto consumers? ?

good idea to dip out. i mentally checked out a while back and am just having fun slinging mud across the room.

you are making too much sense providing more ammo for those who know just enough to be dangerous. they spoke their piece, you clapped back. the end. it's rarely about being right or wrong. it's about how you make people feel.

 

[IllIllIll]

It's basic economics, normally not controversial, that cost and price are connected. If you want proof of that simple idea, consult an econ text.

Ah yes, the usual "it's basic economics, look it up yourself" retort. This overused, tired phrase is the standard line typically used by people who need to take their own advice.

How about you provide us a reference to an "econ text" that backs up what you're saying?

 

[Sanpete]

They are a trillion dollar company. Save your sympathy for something else.

My sympathy is for the customers paying more for less value as a result of high returns.

Umm.. you pretty much proved my point. Since Apple includes all factors into their pricing. And that their generous return policy makes higher sales. Is your argument then that we should try to limit buying apple items so they cost less? Or is your argument we should not return items to make them cost less?

Again, it works the same way as using a more costly part because that part will increase sales. My argument is what I keep saying, that the costs of returns are passed on to customers through price and/or the value of the product. What customers should do with that understanding is a further question, but they should at least understand the effects of their actions.

I’m probably dropping out of this discussion

Probably a good idea, until you learn to respond to what's said.

Let’s take another example since so many, like you, seem hell bent on “lower returns” == “lower cost for consumers”… Apple dropped Intel from their products and and have actualized very real cost savings doing so as they are able to spread the R&D and other costs from their Apple Silicone across their entire product line and cut out a third party supplier for one of the most expensive components in their computers. Yet Mac prices with Apple Silicone are higher than then Intel models they are replacing… Why isn’t Apple passing this cost savings onto consumers? ?

Wow, you've shown basic economic principles don't apply! Or, just maybe, the new screens, new speakers, larger cases, fans, heatsinks, etc also cost money, and the costs of most of the components have gone up.

The educated person knows what he doesn't know. The uneducated person thinks he knows everything.

Oh, the irony!

Ah yes, the usual "it's basic economics, look it up yourself" retort. This overused, tired phrase is the standard line typically used by people who need to take their own advice.

How about you provide us a reference to an "econ text" that backs up what you're saying?

This is like asking someone to show you that 2+2 really equals 4. Not a good use of time. This isn't that hard to follow, unless you prefer not to.

 

[IllIllIll]

This is like asking someone to show you that 2+2 really equals 4. Not a good use of time. This isn't that hard to follow, unless you prefer not to.

In other words: "I'm either too lazy to back up my statements with facts, or the facts simply don't exist." Got it.

 

[BluAffiliate]

I’m probably dropping out of this discussion as it is like talking to a computer user with no programming experience about computer programming. Yet the user is constantly making declarations of fact in areas they know little about.

I don’t want to delve deep into Cost Accounting here as, again, the discussion will get too far in the weeds. But, let’s take your Coca-Cola example for a simple discussion point… How does Coca-Cola figure out the cost of a bottle of coke when you have a shift supervisor overseeing a plant that can make up to 100K bottles of various fizzy drinks per shift? How does it then account for his cost on a day where they had a problem that caused the line to stop and drop production from 100K bottles that shift to 20K bottles? Obviously the ”cost” of this employee in relation to a bottle has increased due to the lowered output. Do you raise the cost of coke to reflect this? Do you ignore his “cost” when factoring in your cost of making coke?

Apple has a team of MBAs who have their cost structure well understood...

Let’s take another example since so many, like you, seem hell bent on “lower returns” == “lower cost for consumers”… Apple dropped Intel from their products and and have actualized very real cost savings doing so as they are able to spread the R&D and other costs from their Apple Silicone across their entire product line and cut out a third party supplier for one of the most expensive components in their computers. Yet Mac prices with Apple Silicone are higher than then Intel models they are replacing… Why isn’t Apple passing this cost savings onto consumers? ?

Nope, I never said that.

I just said if you think the price of something is based on just how much materials cost that's wrong. The cola example is saying that even the dumbest person in the world can realize theres a lot more that goes into a product's price than just the sugar water and no one pretends the marketing, corporate structure, branding, and other overhead isn't part of the product's price.

You said the margin on the iphone is 2x the component cost which may or may not be true but it's ignoring a lot of the other costs like R&D, marketing, overhead, distribution, shipping, etc. etc.

 

[arche3]

My sympathy is for the customers paying more for less value as a result of high returns.


Again, it works the same way as using a more costly part because that part will increase sales. My argument is what I keep saying, that the costs of returns are passed on to customers through price and/or the value of the product. What customers should do with that understanding is a further question, but they should at least understand the effects of their actions.


Probably a good idea, until you learn to respond to what's said.


Wow, you've shown basic economic principles don't apply! Or, just maybe, the new screens, new speakers, larger cases, fans, heatsinks, etc also cost money, and the costs of most of the components have gone up.


Oh, the irony!


This is like asking someone to show you that 2+2 really equals 4. Not a good use of time. This isn't that hard to follow, unless you prefer not to.

So you don't even have an opinion? I think everyone knows stuff costs money and stuff makes companies charge money.

 

[Sanpete]

I think everyone knows stuff costs money and stuff makes companies charge money.

Progress!

 

[arche3]

Progress!

Not really. You are regurgitating stuff made up in your head.

 

[arche3]

In other words: "I'm either too lazy to back up my statements with facts, or the facts simply don't exist." Got it.

No its more like he is making up so many random posts he forgets what he typed yesterday.

 

[arche3]

Progress!

I have another one. Apple is really owned by Microsoft and they actually want people to return everything to devalue apple. But it backfired. And the next part is a doozy. You are actually the marketing expert at Microsoft that came up with the plan but is now on mac forums trying to build good will on the internet for your failed plan so the cabal doesn't make you disappear.

 

[dumastudetto]

I know that Apple have a very generous no questions asked returns policy. But I would imagine that there is a significant cost to this for Apple ( which is obviouly then passed onto us, as customers ). After all, they can’t just put stuff back on the shelf like a book from a book store. There‘s an economic cost, and there’s an environmental cost, but there’s also a moral cost in that it seems many people are gaming this generous policy by buying machines they know they don’t need, in order to ‘test’ stuff out. This means people keenly waiting for a machine have to wait longer.
What do other people on here think of this? For me it seems in poor taste; the policy is there for people who genuinely find that the machine they bought just doesn’t suit their needs. And yet some folk on here almost talk about buying two and returning one with glee. Is it the worst of human nature, the unacceptable face of consumerism set against the pleas of restraint at COP 26? Or am I just getting old and fusty?

As background, I’m looking to buy one of the new laptops and so I’ve been researching my purchase to see what I need, don’t need, may want etc. I’ve measured out screen sizes on my desktop to compare,and been into the local computer stores to see various current apple models. I’ve read various reviews and spent probably too much time watching various YouTubers of no proven expertise all trotting out identikit rundowns. I feel like I've done my research now and I’d be pretty certain that when I make my purchase I’m making it seriously.

So, what do others think?

The question shouldn't even need asking.

The answer is YES, btw.​