What I do is irrelevant and I have zero personal responsibility so take none. People always fall for this mantra. Do what is right for you so if you need a week to decide then utilize for your requirements, not Apple’s.
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 will flag your account and may refuse a return in the case of excessive returns. This is also true for app refunds. It's not required to accept your return. Other companies do this as well. And no, the "excessive" threshold is not defined in Apple's legal sales and refund policy.
If Apple can setup complicated corporate structure to avoid paying taxes, you a common pleb can return used products as long as you are not breaking any laws. I personally don't like to buy things just to return it after use.
Not true at all because a company only models use of a return policy -- not abuse by a large number of people. There is no other way to do it. Usually the models are correct. Sometimes they are not -- and when that happens it presents a problem. Most people, thankfully, choose to exercise proper discretion and conduct themselves in a proper civilized manner.
People abused REI's generous return policy. Now it doesn't exist anymore. It is not right to return stuff like some people do and it will ruin it for everyone.
How do you know that their model doesn’t account for a certain amount of people “abusing” the policy? Of course models are usually incorrect at first but over time they get better, until they take on a quality akin to efficient market hypothesis. Nate Silver, the statistician who founded 538, writes about it in his book The Signal and the Noise, in relation to betting markets. I’d be reasonably confident that with the amount of time Apple has been in business they’ve factored in a reasonable model of return trends, that benefits the bottom line. Of course, if all of a sudden returning habits changed substantially then it would require reevaluation.
Yes, thank you, you are demonstrating my point. Abuse of the policy hurts the company and requires reevaluation of the policy. Just research LL Bean for generous return policies gone amuck. A model is just that -- a model. They are never perfect.
Anyway, my main contention is that abusing a return policy negatively reflects on a person character regardless of the effect on the company. I would hope we can agree on that simple point as well.
I don't know this to be a fact, BUT, you will probably find that the returned items end up as the 'REFURBISHED and CLEARANCE' stock that many of have bought from and benefitted significantly from.
In fact, for high value items, I always go there first to see if I can buy what I need and usually 6 months after a product has been launched, there are items to buy. Apple makes a huge margin even on these items never mind the fully priced 'NEW" items.
In fact, for high value items, I always go there first to see if I can buy what I need and usually 6 months after a product has been launched, there are items to buy. Apple makes a huge margin even on these items never mind the fully priced 'NEW" items.
Ah, well I won’t debate you on the objectivity of morals. Personally I subscribe to a more Nietzschean philosophy but understand that society generally needs to agree to a shared set of customs to function. You have a lovely day.
Who cares about moral? Apple has also no moral. 1 year warranty and cheaply build devices with scratches and marks out of factory. They are earning a lot by use cheap manufacturing and construction (very sensitive display and case, cheap painted keyboard, cheap rubber dome, electronic parts who are good for failing at any time, watch Louis Rossmann on youtube) . And then they sell you 1 tb 16 gb pro models for 3000 Euros. Which are not delivering a premium workflow experience.
It is, it's up to the buyer whether they want to pay the price or not. There are alternatives after all.
I don't care about Amazon or Bezos or any other online company like Apple or Microsoft, but my return rate is probably about .1%. I only return things that don't work, but I'm old school.
I did cancel my M1 MBP Max order though, but it wasn't supposed to ship for another 4-6 weeks. So yeah, all these people ordering and returning are keeping stock from people that did want to buy it but didn't order right away. Oh well, Apple's loss, as it should be.
Apple positions their computers as a higher priced luxury brand and both the generous return policy and the right to excercise it are part of what you’re buying when you buy an Apple product. Yes Apple bakes this into the retail costs - this is a *feature* not a bug as far as Apple is concerned!
As far as this weird morality argument - some of you guys are talking about these computers like people are waiting in a bread line or something. These are want-based, not need-based, items for every single purchaser. And to be frank, Apple’s and my finances and financial decisions are none of anyone else’s business. If you can’t get your hands on a computer and you wanted one, you have only one person to blame.
As far as this weird morality argument - some of you guys are talking about these computers like people are waiting in a bread line or something. These are want-based, not need-based, items for every single purchaser. And to be frank, Apple’s and my finances and financial decisions are none of anyone else’s business. If you can’t get your hands on a computer and you wanted one, you have only one person to blame.
Last edited:
Not really but what I did find gross in that thread where people were waiting for their MacBooks to arrive were the ones who literally had a MacBook on the truck for delivery and could not wait a few hours, bought one from the local store and then returned the other one once delivered.
JonDigital
If you want a perfect Macbook, you have to order several. Many have scratches and marks out of the box. And of course the pixel failure and dust problem. I had one Macbook Pro 14" with pink sub pixel failure on white and dust behind the glass (grey spot).
But if the macbook from store had this problems i mentioned above it would be better you have one macbook as fallback.
I order macbooks only from sellers with fast and free return. The risk for getting a faulty one is to high. And i wont order 500 Euro Apple Care+ for 2 years, so i need a reliable seller who is acting like guarantee does.
I order macbooks only from sellers with fast and free return. The risk for getting a faulty one is to high. And i wont order 500 Euro Apple Care+ for 2 years, so i need a reliable seller who is acting like guarantee does.
Easy answer: the policy is there to be used.
As long as one is within the terms of the policy, there is no moral/ethical issue.
As long as one is within the terms of the policy, there is no moral/ethical issue.
If one cannot think of an example constituting an abuse of the policy, I respectfully suggest that a lack of imagination might be the reason. It surely cannot be that an abuse cannot happen merely because a policy exists. That is not a logical conclusion. There have been many such hypothetical examples posted of abuses in this thread. Maybe you should give them a read.
What you mention is the ploy used by social media people who review products to gain views and subscribers to their channel. They purchase an item with no intent of keeping it, make an unboxing video and review video then return the item under the companies return policy. Such a practice has been going on for years and companies are aware of this but find it difficult to stop because they know what ever they try to introduce to prevent such things from happening will ultimatelly affect their genuine customers. (i remember reading about this in a tabloid news paper many years ago, seeing this thread just reminded me of it)
OP wrote:
"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?"
You're getting old and fusty.
But then again, so am I.
The mores that seemed normal and natural to us, decades ago, no longer seem to apply towards the young. They've been purposely educated and indoctrinated "away from" them.
Who is John Galt...?
"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?"
You're getting old and fusty.
But then again, so am I.
The mores that seemed normal and natural to us, decades ago, no longer seem to apply towards the young. They've been purposely educated and indoctrinated "away from" them.
Who is John Galt...?