Is it morally acceptable to abuse a generous returns policy?

[Harmonious Zen]

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.

Last I checked, they still, have an awesome return policy.

 

[Joniz]

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.

 

[dogslobber]

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.

 

[C-Dubs]

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.

 

[narenh]

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.

 

[Dovahkiing]

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.

The classic social media game of picking out uncommon atypical cases and then framing the whole argument like it’s a serious problem.

 

[NathanWind]

Is it morally acceptable to abuse a __________.

No.

 

[Sanpete]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[bevsb2]

I do a ridiculous amount of research before pulling the trigger on any purchase, but there's a big gap between research and fiddling with it in a retail store, and living with it day-to-day. If I spend the money for something, and it doesn't meet my needs, I definitely send it back.

Having said that, I've returned very few items in my lifetime, and none to Apple. I guess I've been lucky...

Is it moral to charge £20 for a cloth

It is ridiculously overpriced, but no one is forcing you to buy it and it certainly isn't a necessary item.

 

[CarlJ]

Give them Craig to run nightly builds of macOS vNext?

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.

 

[CarlJ]

we all know the real reason

ppl are annoyed others ordering more than 1 will delay their order

let's get real here

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.

 

[davidako]

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.

 

[CarlJ]

If Apple considered this kind of practice like an abuse of its policy, it would have put restrictions or limits long time ago. Do apple encourage this? I don’t think so, but they still allow it.

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.

 

[iLG]

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?

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.

 

[CarlJ]

That is infinitely more immoral than anything relating to returns policy, so this topic can comfortably be closed and everyone can sleep easy.

Why not just yell "Hitler!" and Godwin the thread?

Clearly people want to discuss this topic, or it wouldn't be 200+ posts long.

 

[Wolf1701]

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.

if more immoral > immoral then immoral == moral

makes perfect sense

 

[Joniz]

…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.

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?

 

[CarlJ]

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?

 

[Wolf1701]

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?

will more important things to worry about in the world exists at all if adults weren't abusing policies to their own benefit?

 

[Buddygor]

it’s not a question of morality. there is nothing to be gained by empathizing with corporations operating on absurd profit margins; do whatever you want.

 

[AFK]

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.

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.

 

[827538]

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.

 

[Sanpete]

there is nothing to be gained by empathizing with corporations operating on absurd profit margins; do whatever you want.

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.

 

[AFK]

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.

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.

 

[Sanpete]

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.

What does moral objectivism have to do with it? Selfish people cause trouble for everyone else, and are generally unlikable, so we do what we can to discourage it.