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
I really doubt Apple cares, because the reviews probably garner a larger amount of sales; cheap advertising for them.
That is, as long as they don’t put out a lemon.
The reason they’re very rich and most are not is that they don’t let morality get in the way of business.
That is, as long as they don’t put out a lemon.
The reason they’re very rich and most are not is that they don’t let morality get in the way of business.
Again, it's all about what works for the individual. If there's moral ambiguity then that's a personal choice. Any policy Apple has is not designed to lose money as it's built into the purchase price at a minimum. If you need to return then just do it but the flip side of doing extreme returning would beg the question, is this the best use of your time? Life is short.
I’m pretty sure that a reduction in returns would ever reduce the cost Apple gives to us. However, if you are serious about climate change and waste, then yes, it’s not in your morality to do excessive returns. Not to mention, I’m sure Apple tracks this and if you’re abusing the system, they’ll take away that privilege. Costco does that- if you return too much stuff, they’ll just revoke your membership. There’s quite an environmental cost to returns- if you buy refurbished, it means it was returned to Apple then shipped to a refurbishment site, then taken apart, checked, tested, repackaged with NEW packaging, then shipped again to a consumer. So yes, your returns do have real world consequences.
I don’t see any issue with this. Apple doesn’t offer the general public a way to see new devices before preorders go live, so I usually will buy the product I want in multiple colors/finishes, go to the store on launch day, see the display models, decide which one I want, and then pick up just that one. It’s not like the products need to be re-packaged or shipped anywhere.
The classic social media game of picking out uncommon atypical cases and then framing the whole argument like it’s a serious problem.
A perfect recipe for social disintegration, for many kinds of crime or maltreatment of others that you think benefits you. Thanks for being so clear about an attitude that underlies a number of the comments here.
Their model does account for that, and it's priced in, so everyone who buys a new one ends up paying for the costs of returns.
Those who buy refurbished do benefit relative to those who buy new, who pay for the decreased profit that comes from refurbished items that cost more to produce and sell for less.
It is ridiculously overpriced, but no one is forcing you to buy it and it certainly isn't a necessary item.
Connecting stories from the front page recently, now I'm imagining building macOS and other large projects on a huge array of... HomePod minis (a bunch went out for review, what to do with them when they come back?).
It's more possible than you might think - people have built huge server farms of Raspberry Pi's. But, yeah, it would be kinda surreal. Especially if they blink/swirl their top lights in some way to show build activity.
Projecting selfish motives onto everyone else? The words "all" and "real" in your first sentence make it incorrect.
I try very hard to figure out whether something will fit my needs before I order, and thus I rarely return things. I do this because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm selfish or I'm trying to be nice to people who are anxious to get their new shiny object.
Just recently Apple has allowed Notability to remove basic functionality from customers who have paid for their app, just so they can force a subscription model with higher profits.
That is infinitely more immoral than anything relating to returns policy, so this topic can comfortably be closed and everyone can sleep easy.
That is infinitely more immoral than anything relating to returns policy, so this topic can comfortably be closed and everyone can sleep easy.
Apple may well consider that practice to be an abuse of the policy, while figuring that making the policy more complicated than "14 days no questions asked" would hurt their overall position.
Most credit card companies "tolerate" a certain amount of fraud - they know fraud is going on, and they try to minimize / thwart it, but they don't require every charge submitted to be accompanied by three forms of government issued photo ID and a notarized birth certificate, because, although that would cut down on fraud substantially, it would also cut down on use of their credit card services. They strive to make the transaction "frictionless", so that people will use their services more. Would you argue that credit card companies think fraud is okay?
I would argue that Apple is doing similar. They see good returns (defective or it turns out it really isn't suitable for customer's needs) and they see abusive returns (say, a customer just wants a laptop for a week for something - to take on vacation, say - and never intended to purchase), and they consider the latter abusive, but their only alternative is to make the simple return policy more complicated, and they believe doing that would hurt their image and/or bottom line, so they allow the abuse to continue. I think arguing that "Apple would have changed it if they didn't like it" is looking at things as black & white when the reality is more subtle than that.
Probably doesn’t cost apple much at all. I had to return an iMac that I chose the wrong spec on when ordering and I was so lucky the returns policy is so chill.
I just think that people that do it repeatedly need to get a new hobby or actually never needed the product in the first place.
Why not just yell "Hitler!" and Godwin the thread?
Clearly people want to discuss this topic, or it wouldn't be 200+ posts long.
If anyone is gaming anything, it’s Apple gaming basic psychology.
They know that once someone gets something in their hands, and it takes some effort to return it, they are less likely to actually make the return.
Don't get it into their hands, and they’re less likely to make a purchase.
Tim would be more than happy if more people “tested” their stuff out.
Besides, aren’t there more important things going on in the world that you should take into consideration before worrying about adults using a company policy to their own benefit?
So, since you went out of your way to bring it up, what are your plans for ending world hunger?
will more important things to worry about in the world exists at all if adults weren't abusing policies to their own benefit?
this topic can be its own dramatic thread. im an indie dev who cant hold down a corporate gig. i put food on the table partly with money i make from the app stores along w/ my gigolo duties. not as simple as you make it out to be.
I think it's a moral gray area. I personally try to avoid do this as I want to limit my impact on the environment but also if I'm not happy with a $2,000 purchase I'm going to return it. Same for a $100k car. If you're returning it due to some sort of mild defect I guess it's OK, returning because you bought several models to pick and decide then that's not really appropriate in my opinion.
"against the pleas of restraint at COP 26" Sorry but the people speaking here are the biggest hypocrites on planet earth. Print Charles few 1,600 miles on a private jet to lecture the plebs at the conference. Something like 400 private jets arrived bringing people to this conference. I'm quite environmentally conscious but the elites can go hang for their rank hypocrisy. Zoom would've sufficed. Nothing more than do as we say, not as we do. In which case I refuse to listen to a thing they say.
"against the pleas of restraint at COP 26" Sorry but the people speaking here are the biggest hypocrites on planet earth. Print Charles few 1,600 miles on a private jet to lecture the plebs at the conference. Something like 400 private jets arrived bringing people to this conference. I'm quite environmentally conscious but the elites can go hang for their rank hypocrisy. Zoom would've sufficed. Nothing more than do as we say, not as we do. In which case I refuse to listen to a thing they say.
Not what this thread is about, but even if it were, it's surprising how many here both object to what they think big corporations do and adopt it as their own standard.
yup. no problems admitting im selfish. will look out for my fam over yours.
whats with all this moral objectivism on a tech geek forum. holy mother of all gooses.