IUP a scheme to sell AppleCare?

[Freezer001]

I guess my OP was intended to see if anyone else felt the same way. However, I’m quickly realizing there is a fierce force of Apple fanboys.

Haven’t seen anybody mention this before. That’s all.

 

[Knightcastle]

I guess my OP was intended to see if anyone else felt the same way. However, I’m quickly realizing there is a fierce force of Apple fanboys.

Haven’t seen anybody mention this before. That’s all.

I think you’ve realised something in that Apple Care is included in the Upgrade Programme and the price reflects this.

However Apple are quite transparent about this and there are other options available. I wouldn’t call it a “scheme”

Is the iPhone a scheme for selling chargers and headphones? You don’t need new ones every year but they will make up part of the price - why can’t you opt out of having them included?

 

[missbing]

Don’t see why the OP is getting hassle. They’re just pointing out that the only way to upgrade through Apple is if you do IUP which requires AppleCare. They could take off this option, but they of course do it to make extra money especially since more times than not the insurance won’t be used. It’s not like if Apple Care wasn’t included you would be able to upgrade a broken phone. You would still have to get it fixed with your money or not upgrade, so what’s the real reason Apple Care is mandatory? Money.
[doublepost=1510520574][/doublepost]

I think you’ve realised something in that Apple Care is included in the Upgrade Programme and the price reflects this.

However Apple are quite transparent about this and there are other options available. I wouldn’t call it a “scheme”

Is the iPhone a scheme for selling chargers and headphones? You don’t need new ones every year but they will make up part of the price - why can’t you opt out of having them included?

I don’t think this is a good analogy unless AppleCare was mandatory with all iPhones no matter the purchase method.

 

[Freezer001]

I think you’ve realised something in that Apple Care is included in the Upgrade Programme and the price reflects this.

However Apple are quite transparent about this and there are other options available. I wouldn’t call it a “scheme”

Is the iPhone a scheme for selling chargers and headphones? You don’t need new ones every year but they will make up part of the price - why can’t you opt out of having them included?

Of course it’s a scheme. It fits the very definition of one.

scheme
skēm/
noun

1. 1.
   a large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect.
   
   

[doublepost=1510520848][/doublepost]

Don’t see why the OP is getting hassle. They’re just pointing out that the only way to upgrade through Apple is if you do IUP which requires AppleCare. They could take off this option, but they of course do it to make extra money especially since more times than not the insurance won’t be used. It’s not like if Apple Care wasn’t included you would be able to upgrade a broken phone. You would still have to get it fixed with your money or not upgrade, so what’s the real reason Apple Care is mandatory? Money.
[doublepost=1510520574][/doublepost]

I don’t think this is a good analogy unless AppleCare was mandatory with all iPhones no matter the purchase method.

Thank you. Someone gets it lol.

 

[Septembersrain]

I wouldn't use Applecare+ unless it's a device that I leave at home.

I use carrier insurance simply because I have never broken a phone but I have had things stolen.

 

[Mlrollin91]

Not failing to see anything here buddy.

The same thing applies on the Next program. You trade in your device after a certain % is paid off and you’re eligible for a new device. ATT makes money off you by you trading it in and you losing the money you’ve already paid towards your device, however, you weren’t required to buy AppleCare.

Furthermore, Apple could certainly implement an Apple Iphone payments plan without AppleCare. They simply choose not to for reasons I’ve already stated.

You definitely cherry picked my statement. AT&T is not a bank. The bank is putting the requirement for AppleCare. Not Apple. AT&T can do whatever they want. But if you send in a broken phone your are SOL. Citizen One prevents this by requiring AppleCare. Again, not Apple. This is Citizen protecting their assets. It’s really not that complicated. Same as car insurance or house insurance if you have a loan on your property.

 

[mantan]

Of course it is. Applecare is ridiculously overpriced. And if you're under the IUP and upgrading every year, extending the warranty to 2-years is meaningless. The small benefit it offers is a lower deductible for damage. But what percentage of Apple Care customers take advantage of that benefit?

Forcing AppleCare on the IUP is just slapping another high profit margin item to the sale.

It's business, so I don't blame Apple for trying to squeeze every nickel that they can. What I don't get is how people blindly defend them for doing it because they are Apple. If AT&T forced customers to buy their $8.99/mo mobile insurance plan as a condition of using AT&T Next, MR forum users would go ballistic.

 

[bambooshots]

Nope. You’re pretty much leasing a phone from them and it stands to reason that they would require some type of insurance or enhanced warranty plan for the time you’re leasing the product to coverage damages. They can’t very well take a damaged product in on trade in, right?

Kind of like how you need to carry complete coverage when you finance a car.

 

[missbing]

Nope. You’re pretty much leasing a phone from them and it stands to reason that they would require some type of insurance or enhanced warranty plan for the time you’re leasing the product to coverage damages. They can’t very well take a damaged product in on trade in, right?

Kind of like how you need to carry complete coverage when you finance a car.

But the thing is if he phone didn’t have AppleCare and you broke it, they don’t have to accept it back. You would either keep it and continue paying it off or get it fixed with your money so you can trade it in. I don’t see how the bank or Apple is getting screwed.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I know I can’t be the only one to believe that Apple’s main motivation for the program is to sell more protection plans.

I think Apple’s motivation is a sell more iPhones. Selling A/C too is a bonus.

 

[mantan]

Nope. You’re pretty much leasing a phone from them and it stands to reason that they would require some type of insurance or enhanced warranty plan for the time you’re leasing the product to coverage damages. They can’t very well take a damaged product in on trade in, right?

Kind of like how you need to carry complete coverage when you finance a car.

Yet somehow Verizon and AT&T manage to have the exact same program without requiring any type of coverage....

A bank requires insurance on vehicle because most owners can't afford to pay for damage out of pocket.

 

[bambooshots]

Yet somehow Verizon and AT&T manage to have the exact same program without requiring any type of coverage....

A bank requires insurance on vehicle because most owners can't afford to pay for damage out of pocket.

And I don't think people who put their phones on installment plans can afford to pay for damage out of pocket, either.

 

[missbing]

And I don't think people who put their phones on installment plans can afford to pay for damage out of pocket, either.

But we haven’t heard of people on carrier installment plans having any problems paying for their installment phones or damage.

 

[DJAKO]

Maybe I’m alone here, but the X is my second iPhone on the IUP and getting Apple Care included was something I really liked. Sure it’s a few more bucks baked into the total, but having that extra coverage and only having to deal with Apple and not the carrier directly was a bonus to me.