Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't think you are understanding my point at all. I understand exactly how business works... My point is that extended warranties are not worth it for a consumer in most cases. The reason it's that way is because of how businesses work (IE working in profit on the warranty itself). Just because a business offers a service doesn't mean the service is a good value for the consumer. It's purely the math I'm referencing here. Yes, the product will have a markup, and you don't get any benefit of the product if you don't pay the markup to support the business. But the warranty is ONLY buying you peace of mind against a surprise cost. You don't NEED the extended warranty product to enjoy the core product the same way. It's a bad financial decision to buy extended warranties. Period. Companies offer them because people will buy them anyways and they can rake in more money.
I agree with you in general (eg. Extended warranty of TVs for example). And the assumption is there's no design flaws on the product itself, thus any damages solely rely on the user. In this normal case, extended warranties are not worth the money.

The problem with Apple devices is that sometimes the fault is due to Apple's own design flaws, and Apple's attitude of "you're holding it wrong" just made the customer without Applecare on a disadvantage. Consumers ending up paying for repairs that are not due to their faults.
 
Always regretted not getting AppleCare for my MBP. The touchbar flickering drove me insane when I still used it.
 
I don't think you are understanding my point at all. I understand exactly how business works... My point is that extended warranties are not worth it for a consumer in most cases.
That's your opinion. That's not a fact.
The reason it's that way is because of how businesses work (IE working in profit on the warranty itself). Just because a business offers a service doesn't mean the service is a good value for the consumer.
Understandable, but again that's your opinion, not a fact.
But the warranty is ONLY buying you peace of mind against a surprise cost.
Does anybody buy warranties hoping they'll have to use them? I think not.
You don't NEED the extended warranty product to enjoy the core product the same way.
Really? Tell that to the hundreds of people between here, Apple support forums and Reddit who cracked their screen (no fault of Apple's) and didn't have AppleCare Plus. They cried hoping for sympathy because they didn't buy the AppleCare. They got no sympathy. Instead people pointed to the cost of another screen and recommended them to replace it themselves, which is still a risk.
It's a bad financial decision to buy extended warranties. Period.
That's YOUR opinion and not factual.
Companies offer them because people will buy them anyways and they can rake in more money.
That's your opinion and not factual. Once again it's just your way of using different words to say the House always wins. Hopefully you never run your own business because you'll have a different opinion when it's you trying to keep your business afloat.
 
Good point about the Express Replacement option. I wish it was offered for Macs as well.

Yep.

Also, with iPad prices going up, the replacement costs have gotten higher as well.

2017 iPad Pro 512GB Cellular $1229

2018 iPad Pro 512GB Cellular $1499

2019 iPad Pro 512GB Cellular $1599

So the options are $599 OOW replacement with 90-day warranty or $1500-1600 + tax (and maybe accessories) to get an equivalent replacement.


I agree with you in general (eg. Extended warranty of TVs for example). And the assumption is there's no design flaws on the product itself, thus any damages solely rely on the user. In this normal case, extended warranties are not worth the money.

The problem with Apple devices is that sometimes the fault is due to Apple's own design flaws, and Apple's attitude of "you're holding it wrong" just made the customer without Applecare on a disadvantage. Consumers ending up paying for repairs that are not due to their faults.

And it's sad that it often comes down to a class action lawsuit or media publicity before something gets done about it.
 
The problem with Apple devices is that sometimes the fault is due to Apple's own design flaws, and Apple's attitude of "you're holding it wrong" just made the customer without Applecare on a disadvantage. Consumers ending up paying for repairs that are not due to their faults.
Exactly because cracked screens, dents from drops and bumps, damaged batteries from using unauthorized 3rd party chargers, liquid damage due to spills and screen condensation build up from use outside of normal operating conditions is not the fault of the consumer and these things never tend to happen, but only defects from Apple are the only reality. SMH. 🙄
 
That's your opinion. That's not a fact.
Actually no... That is a verifiable fact based on actual math. That's the whole point and basis of my argument...

Look at this article for example. It focuses on a car warranty, but this same principle can apply to all warranties. It's designed for the company to still turn a profit, ie the probability of the event happening is such that they will bring in more than enough to cover any fixes covered by the warranty. By doing so, that means the general consumer is (On average) spending more in AppleCare itself than they are likely to spend on a repair. The difference here is I am looking at it statistically, you are looking at it from a single data point. Mathematically speaking warranties are not worth it. But... if you want to buy it go for it.

 
I agree with you in general (eg. Extended warranty of TVs for example). And the assumption is there's no design flaws on the product itself, thus any damages solely rely on the user. In this normal case, extended warranties are not worth the money.

The problem with Apple devices is that sometimes the fault is due to Apple's own design flaws, and Apple's attitude of "you're holding it wrong" just made the customer without Applecare on a disadvantage. Consumers ending up paying for repairs that are not due to their faults.
Apple will include all of those types of things into the cost though. Yes, there is still some unknown in there, but the math behind those is pretty well solid and understood these days. If I had one of those big issues and they didn't cover it at all, I'd use the money I saved up by not buying extended warranties to replace it with something different or newer that doesn't have that issue at all rather than keep dumping money into a turd of a product.
 
Apple will include all of those types of things into the cost though. Yes, there is still some unknown in there, but the math behind those is pretty well solid and understood these days. If I had one of those big issues and they didn't cover it at all, I'd use the money I saved up by not buying extended warranties to replace it with something different or newer that doesn't have that issue at all rather than keep dumping money into a turd of a product.
Your math is completely correct (and I agree with) on a normal general extended warranty.

However for specifically Apple products, that is easier said than done, especially if the customer is already entrenched in the Apple ecosystem. And sometimes Apple’s design flaw will remain for many generations of the product.
 
Actually no... That is a verifiable fact based on actual math. That's the whole point and basis of my argument...

Look at this article for example. It focuses on a car warranty, but this same principle can apply to all warranties. It's designed for the company to still turn a profit, ie the probability of the event happening is such that they will bring in more than enough to cover any fixes covered by the warranty. By doing so, that means the general consumer is (On average) spending more in AppleCare itself than they are likely to spend on a repair. The difference here is I am looking at it statistically, you are looking at it from a single data point. Mathematically speaking warranties are not worth it. But... if you want to buy it go for it.

Nice. Doesn't mean a thing because when a customer cracks their screen, drops or bangs their Macs or iPads and dents them up, spills liquids filled with sugar and ruins the keyboard and fries the logic board and that poor sap had your mentality he/she will be paying up the nose for a repair or buy a new Apple product. That's why that posted link doesn't mean a thing. 😉
 
Nice. Doesn't mean a thing because when a customer cracks their screen, drops or bangs their Macs or iPads and dents them up, spills liquids filled with sugar and ruins the keyboard and fries the logic board and that poor sap had your mentality he/she will be paying up the nose for a repair or buy a new Apple product. That's why that posted link doesn't mean a thing. 😉
All of that is factored into those numbers dude... You clearly just don't understand how this works at all.
 
Sorry I wouldn’t go without an Apple care have any Apple product had 6 iPhones replaced over the years three Apple watches and multiple AirPods Pro’s plus case. My son had his mbp 16” screen replaced and keyboard. Just for the express replacement makes it even worth it tried lining up at Apple Store with Covid happening you can’t get in so express replacement is the way to go. Plus my son bought a new iPad set on his bedside table and accidentally dropped it so I got it replaced well worth the money. Go AppleCare +
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maconplasma
Actually no... That is a verifiable fact based on actual math. That's the whole point and basis of my argument...

Look at this article for example. It focuses on a car warranty, but this same principle can apply to all warranties. It's designed for the company to still turn a profit, ie the probability of the event happening is such that they will bring in more than enough to cover any fixes covered by the warranty. By doing so, that means the general consumer is (On average) spending more in AppleCare itself than they are likely to spend on a repair. The difference here is I am looking at it statistically, you are looking at it from a single data point. Mathematically speaking warranties are not worth it. But... if you want to buy it go for it.


The individual isn't the general population though.

Kids, pets, inebriation, field work, use around water, etc. are factors that can increase risk. With AC+, there isn't a separate pool for "high-risk" users.

With the tire example, those might be the overall numbers. However, it's entirely possible that customers who frequently drive on streets with potholes, cracks, etc. require repair more often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maconplasma
All of that is factored into those numbers dude... You clearly just don't understand how this works at all.
I think we can have a conversation without you referring to me as DUDE and being insulting. At this point your argument is failing and that one website doesn't mean anyone should go by what it states. Do what you need to do to make yourself happy. The rest of us will do what we need to do in terms of how we handle our Apple repairs. Have a good day.
 
The individual isn't the general population though.

Kids, pets, inebriation, field work, use around water, etc. are factors that can increase risk. With AC+, there isn't a separate pool for "high-risk" users.

He keeps citing math while ignoring the first principle of statistics - making decisions (at least the decision he advocates) based on statistics only works if each trial is independent and subject to the same parameters.

As you note, not everyone is the same. We have different risk profiles, different risk tolerances, different fiscal constraints, etc. Some products are more highly likely to break than others. Some products cost more, percentage wise, to repair than others. Just because the entire mass of consumers, as a whole, receives less than they pay into Apple care does not mean that any particular category of user can’t benefit. Indeed, people buying apple care on Apple TVs subsidize those of us who benefit from free repairs on expensive MacBook pros (which, being mobile and having moving parts, are more likely to break).
 
I bought an extended warranty on my Porsche, and with 9 days remaining in that extended warranty the engine block literally cracked. I spent $2000 for the warranty and the new motor would have been $13,500 plus labor.

Anecdotes are just anecdotes. People can make their own decisions based on their tolerance for risk, the value of their time, and their own circumstances.
I'm specifically talking about cold hard numbers. Your story sounds like you are an outlier. What were the odds that the engine block would crack like that? Or you are really hard on your things, in which case extended warranties are probably a good deal for you. But the true cost of the repair is being paid by the other masses of consumers who bought the warranty and will never ever use it. That's the math of it. Not anecdotal at all... In your Porsche example 6 people beyond you would have had to buy that $2000 warranty and never use it for the company to make any profit at all. I'm sure there margins are higher than that. If at least 6 other people hadn't bought it, the company would not be able to make a profit and would go out of business.

That said, If you want to spend the money on extended warranties, then go for it. I agree people can make their own choices on the matter. I'm simply trying to explain the math behind it and you all are arguing with me as though the math that every company is doing on their coverage is wrong...
 
If that was my experience with apple products I would have been gone ages ago. What has worked for you with no problems

The whole ecosystem in general. Not saying that it’s been all roses and rainbows, but I really like the way all my apple products work together, and to me, it’s worth putting up with all these issues from time to time because for the other 360 days a year, it’s pretty much been that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Td1970
I never said anything otherwise. Besides it doesn't matter anyway the product is still under warranty during the first 6 months, so what you're saying is pointless.

I already said that. Perhaps you failed to read it when calling me out? 🙄

No. I read the UK consumer law terms. Did you? It states that the issue must be the same issue found within the first 6 months of ownership unless all you listed were a problem from the start, then yes they are covered. Multiple issues outside the 1 year warranty that were not reported and attempted to be repaired by Apple within the first 6 months are not covered. Bringing up the butterfly keyboard is useless. Apple has a repair program for it so once again what you stated is simply pointless.

Apple has a 4 year repair program for the flex cable and it depends on the model. Outside of listed covered models the burden is put on the consumer to prove their unlisted model had the defect from the original date of purchase or within the first 6 months after original purchase. Sure the CPU can fail after 2 years. So? It has to be reported to Apple with an attempt to repair within the first 6 months, (or proven that it was defective since the original purchase date) and of course it depends if the Consumer law allows up to 2 years or longer. What you're stating is warranty coverage. UK Consumer Law is not a warranty.

Yes, correct but only within the first 6 months unless the consumer can prove 2 years later that a non-widespread or unknown issue was the fault of Apples, and I doubt the consumer can do that easily.😉. And yes if that is the case then Apple must attempt to repair or replace or offer a suitable solution. Just telling Apple and no official work being done is not part of the UK Consumer law. For example, people complaining on forums is not proof of a defect.

Well duh. What was your point here? That's normal. If something fails within the warranty period Apple will fix it.

BTW there's no such word as "delaminaton". The issue with the screen delaminate was a problem Apple discovered and created a repair program for it and they are still taking care of some customers about it. Forums are NOT official proof. I would love for you to show me where it states on an official UK Consumer Law document that complaining forums are proof enough to force Apple to repair. Another pointless comment from you.

Another Apple repair program that was put in place. You make no sense bringing up existing repair programs.
Also you seem to be confusing what a WARRANTY is in comparison to Lemon Laws. Lemon Laws are not warranties. They are to protect the consumer from getting a lemon right out of the box, not to repair issues that weren't reported to Apple for repair during the first 6 months nor without proof of defect from the consumer.

If you're going to quote me and tell me I'm wrong then please post an official document of the UK Consumer Law backing up every single word you stated. The U.S has a lemon law as well. This isn't some special consumer protection the UK has only. Lemon laws vary from country to country but relatively work the same to protect the consumer, but they are NOT warranties.
Yes i have. And I have used EU consumer laws multiple times. The law has nothing to do with the first 6 months. A thing could fail one day before the last day and as long as you can prove it’s a manufacturing defect they will have to fix it.

they have two options. Try and fix it or offer an equal replacement or refund the full purchasing price if they fail to fix the problems within a reasonable timeframe , max three tries

If the GPU fails year 1 and you can prove it’s not your fault as a hidden defect they are required to fix it. If the keyboard backlit fails 2 months after the GPU it would be the exact same condition. This is independent from repair program’s.
The butterfly keys are an example as apple did not cover it initially.

you have no obligation to report a problem within the first 6 months. Only burden of proof it’s a manufacturing problem not caused by you

I had a MacBook Pro 2012 that failed after a year that I had to repair 4 times for three difrent issues. One was two motherboard failure, one screen coating flaking and one charging port.

forum post are evidence for an aparent issue. And you can use independent verification by a third party shop declaring it’s a manufacturing problem an i as a consumer would be reimbursed for any extra costs. If they refuse I can just go to the equivalent of a consumer protection agency and complain this is from law:
The Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015


Under the law of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland, claims for breach of contract are subject to a limitation period of six years from the date of the breach of contract, whereas in Scottish law the limitation period is five years. Because the protections provided under this Part of the Act operate on the basis of contract law, the consumer has 6 years (or 5 years in Scotland) within which they may pursue remedies for breach of one of the statutory rights. This does not mean that a consumer may seek a remedy under the Act for any fault arising in goods at any time in the six (or five) years following delivery, but only if one of the statutory rights is breached. The statutory right under section 9 (goods to be of satisfactory quality) will only be breached if goods are not of the standard which a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory, taking into account circumstances including the price and any description given. This test of reasonableness is provided under section 9(2). For example, the statutory right may not be breached and so a consumer would not be able to obtain a remedy if, say, a very cheap kettle stopped working fully after four years, as a reasonable person might not expect a bottom of the range kettle to last that long.
 
Yes i have. And I have used EU consumer laws multiple times. The law has nothing to do with the first 6 months. A thing could fail one day before the last day and as long as you can prove it’s a manufacturing defect they will have to fix it.

they have two options. Try and fix it or offer an equal replacement or refund the full purchasing price if they fail to fix the problems within a reasonable timeframe , max three tries

If the GPU fails year 1 and you can prove it’s not your fault as a hidden defect they are required to fix it. If the keyboard backlit fails 2 months after the GPU it would be the exact same condition. This is independent from repair program’s.
The butterfly keys are an example as apple did not cover it initially.

you have no obligation to report a problem within the first 6 months. Only burden of proof it’s a manufacturing problem not caused by you

I had a MacBook Pro 2012 that failed after a year that I had to repair 4 times for three difrent issues. One was two motherboard failure, one screen coating flaking and one charging port.

forum post are evidence for an aparent issue. And you can use independent verification by a third party shop declaring it’s a manufacturing problem an i as a consumer would be reimbursed for any extra costs. If they refuse I can just go to the equivalent of a consumer protection agency and complain this is from law:
The Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015
I like how you posted what you wanted me to see (especially when you posted an untruth) but you didn't post the facts that come directly from Apple's own website. See below: 😉


From Apple in regards to the Consumer Law:
"Any defect or non-conformity of goods with the contract which becomes apparent within 6 months of delivery are presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. After the expiry of this 6-month period, the burden to prove that the defect or non-conformity of goods with the contract existed on delivery generally shifts to the consumer.

Let's leave it here and end this discussion because frankly when people cherrypick info and make incorrect blanket statements such as yours I highlighted I'm done here.
 
Actually no... That is a verifiable fact based on actual math. That's the whole point and basis of my argument...

Look at this article for example. It focuses on a car warranty, but this same principle can apply to all warranties. It's designed for the company to still turn a profit, ie the probability of the event happening is such that they will bring in more than enough to cover any fixes covered by the warranty. By doing so, that means the general consumer is (On average) spending more in AppleCare itself than they are likely to spend on a repair. The difference here is I am looking at it statistically, you are looking at it from a single data point. Mathematically speaking warranties are not worth it. But... if you want to buy it go for it.

Try changing the cost of 'blowout' from the example to $699 (and keep same $7 for monthly payment) and i bet you will have very different result...

But in any case, insurance is insurance. You are buying it for the peace of mind and ease of getting the replacement. Had out of warranty replacement cost being at $300 or lower (like in your tire example), insurance is probably not worth the cost. But now it's at $699, and Apple had only increased AC+ by $20 to $149, I think it's a no brainer, and I speak from personal experience that i just had 2 iPads replaced by AC+ last year during lockdown and the whole process couldn't have gone any smoother. Just my 2 cents.
 
Try changing the cost of 'blowout' from the example to $699 (and keep same $7 for monthly payment) and i bet you will have very different result...

But in any case, insurance is insurance. You are buying it for the peace of mind and ease of getting the replacement. Had out of warranty replacement cost being at $300 or lower (like in your tire example), insurance is probably not worth the cost. But now it's at $699, and Apple had only increased AC+ by $20 to $149, I think it's a no brainer, and I speak from personal experience that i just had 2 iPads replaced by AC+ last year during lockdown and the whole process couldn't have gone any smoother. Just my 2 cents.

Yep. And tires are simply tires.

With technology, there's a question of whether it's worth spending the OOW cost to fix an older model or if one is better off getting something else.

I used to replace my iPads every year so I never bothered with AC+ before. Nowadays, release cadence is unpredictable, I'm keeping iPads longer and the latest one I'm buying costs $2200 with tax (12.9 1TB 5G). To me it's worth the $7.99/mo AC+ for a quick, hassle-free replacement should the need arise.
 
I like how you posted what you wanted me to see (especially when you posted an untruth) but you didn't post the facts that come directly from Apple's own website. See below: 😉


From Apple in regards to the Consumer Law:
"Any defect or non-conformity of goods with the contract which becomes apparent within 6 months of delivery are presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. After the expiry of this 6-month period, the burden to prove that the defect or non-conformity of goods with the contract existed on delivery generally shifts to the consumer.

Let's leave it here and end this discussion because frankly when people cherrypick info and make incorrect blanket statements such as yours I highlighted I'm done here.
What are you talking about. I posted directly from the UK governments legal document. What apple writes is irrelevant
If it contradicts the law availa

Section 19: Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods
105
you have to prove under the 1-6 years it’s a manufacturer defect. I fail to se how this is a lemon law.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Maconplasma
Sounds to me like the iPad Pro costs $149 more than the base price.

This thing is (designed to be mainly) a handheld device.

Drops WILL occur.

So, unless your expensive IPP is going to always be set down somewhere, insure it like you do your iPhone.

Now, the base iPad? I case it and that's it.
 
I wouldn't call it a scam because Apple is informing people ahead of time what is and isn't covered, and then follows through with adhering to the insurance.

It is good business for Apple and it is also easy profit for them. Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone is careful with their devices. And even when you are, accidents can happen and or problems can arise (and often do) after purchase, that would otherwise be overly expensive for those without AC+.
I think the consumer watchdog needs to get involved at some point. It may be good business for Apple, but it’s a poor deal for the consumer. If you’ve just spent £699 on a device and Apple are tailoring a system that makes any form of accidental damage hugely expensive in order to panic the consumer into buying AppleCare, that’s wrong. Sure repair bills on devices should be costly, but nearly the cost of the total device? That’s dreadful practise.

AppleCare is in itself an expensive insurance policy. The average cost of insuring a home and it’s contents in the UK is £152 a year. Mine is less than £300 and it covers everything I own including my iPhone/iPad should I lose or break them. If I took out AC on every Apple device I own, I’d be paying way more than it costs to insure around £300k of buildings and belongings that I own. It looks like a rip off to me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.