"Renting" New Macbook Air/Pros from the Apple Store

[bcaslis]

...

It is what it is. I just follow the force of the strongest argument wherever it leads me. But I'll say this much, it's better than living in fairytale land.



I'd wager otherwise, but we'll never know, now will we?



Yep.



Really. Where does your sense of sliminess come from? God? Other people (if so, do you ever think for yourself, and if not, where do you suppose they got it from)? Trace the genealogy of your morals, if you can, at least once in your liufe, to their roots. It'll do your mind a great deal of good.



So you want to turn this into a semantic debate?

Since you don't want to argue morals, then yes a semantic debate. I see that what you think you can't win you just dismiss.

Must be great to live with no morals or responsibility. And I don't live in fairyland, I live with other normal humans. You apparently want to act like an animal (your own words). It apparently is useless to argue anything rational with you since anything you can get away with is OK. Have fun knocking down old ladies and stealing their pursues because apparently it's OK as long as you don't get caught and can get away with it.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Since you don't want to argue morals,

I'd be happy to argue morals, as I've stated before. Name the moral you desire to defend, and then explain the justification for it. I'll then proceed to show you why that justification is no good.

then yes a semantic debate. I see that what you think you can't win you just dismiss.

I don't dismiss anything, apparently you haven't been paying attention. I just don't think anything hinges on the OP's use of the word "renting". It is ill-chosen for reasons you and others point out. But whatever we want to call the OP's practice of buying and returning, the real issue is whether or not there is anything wrong in so doing. So it appears as if you are the one dodging the real issues, for you've expressed scorn but gave no reasons as to why anyone should agree with your moral intuitions. That doesn't make for a persuasive argument does it?

Must be great to live with no morals or responsibility. And I don't live in fairyland, I live with other normal humans. You apparently want to act like an animal (your own words).

We are all animals. You can't but act as one.

It apparently is useless to argue anything rational with you since anything you can get away with is OK.

This is what we call "begging the question".

Have fun knocking down old ladies and stealing their pursues because apparently it's OK as long as you don't get caught and can get away with it.

I don't engage in such juvenile behavior. When I want something I persuade someone to give it to me, far easier and classier than appropriating it by force. But go on, keep trying with the rhetorical tricks. Ironically, it seems to be you resorting to emotional pleas, abandoning rational discussion. Quite revealing wouldn't you say? For someone with morals, you sure don't abide very long by the standards of logical/courteous discourse do you? Not that I have a problem with you slinging argumentative mud, it's just you won't get away with it here.

 

[MeatRocket]

I won't argue the morality of the original question. I'll just define 2 terms:

RENT - a payment or series of payments made by a lessee to an owner in return for the use of machinery, equipment, etc.

FRAUD - deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

My take is, you're not really RENTING, because Apple is getting no money from you. Any money you spend is being returned to you by way of you perpetrating FRAUD.

So perhaps you should take "renting" out of your title and instead put "defrauding"? Not a judgement, just a clarification of semantics and grammar.

 

[ntrigue]

This is the most hair-brained scheme I've heard.

Buy a Haswell Air and sell it a week after the new MBPr is released. You'll lose about $120 over three months so your 'rental' is $40 per month.

----------

Apple will track your returns and you may be 86'd from buying products from Apple Stores. Happens on Amazon.com.

 

[MeatRocket]

This is the most hair-brained scheme I've heard.

Just read his other threads, he does the scamming thing often. I'm suprised since Apple HQ is just up the road from him (he's in LA). I'm sure California courts would be lenient to him defrauding the #2 revenue generating company in the state.

 

[sofianito]

I believe the most important factor to take into account is the 'intention'. If the intention of an individual is not harmful, then there is nothing wrong with that. For instance, if an individual is having hard time to choose between a MBA, 13" rMBP, or 15" rMBP, and knowing apple products are not cheap, then there is nothing wrong if he spends 13x3 days testing those notebooks provided he:
1) keeps or purchases one of them after the whole trial period (39 days) is over.
2) each exchanged notebook must be returned in a perfect condition (no scratches, no dried ketchup over the keyboard ,...etc)

By purchasing one of these notebooks, the individual is paying somehow a rent, don't you think so? How? you would ask me. Well, he will pay the notebook at full price, while the returned ones would be sold with a discount in the refurbished section benefiting other individuals who buy them. It sounds fair to me, don't you think so?
Someone who cares about apple's benefits margins (probably an investor) would argue apple is losing money?!. Wrong, because risks and most of use cases (refund, exchanges, shipping costs,...etc) are reflected on the retail price. So, at the end everyone is benefiting from the system, not only the corporations!

Now, statistically speaking, what is the probability having every individual proceeding in the same modus operandi as the OP? It is very low. To say a number, maybe 1 of each 1000 customers...

Regarding the 'individual's intention' I mentioned in the beginning, I don't think one could have a harmful intention against a company he is willing to buy from. On the other hand, the history is likely haunted of non ethical behaviors of companies paying anonymously customers like you and me to undermine other companies sales...

 

[MeatRocket]

By purchasing one of these notebooks, the individual is paying somehow a rent, don't you think so? How? you would ask me. Well, the individual will pay the notebook at full price, while the returned ones would be sold with a discount in the refurbished section benefiting other individuals who buy them. It sounds fair to me, don't you think so?

No, I don't think so. I'll explain - The individual has possession of the product AND is benefiting from its use. Once the item is returned & the full price paid is refunded, the company not only didn't get compensated for the use of its product, it is thereafter unable to sell the item at full retail price. The individual gained use at no expense, and the company lost revenue due to depreciation - there are no 2 ways to look at this.

Can you explain in your scenario, again, how the user is somehow paying rent? Full retail price doesn't include a rent provision. The company having to sell the unit as a refurb due to unscrupulous consumers is defacto fraud and theft. Again, it goes back to intent.

The unit will be sold at a discount to the next person as it's now a refurbished unit, and will benefit the next individual. Unfortunately, companies don't stay afloat by benefitting individuals, they stay afloat by making full retail sales.

This is more rigidly enforced in car sales. Someone "buying" a car, driving it for 2 months & then bringing it back for a full refund is ridiculous. The consumer has to sell at a depreciated value. Mainstream vendors such as Best Buy caught onto people abusing the returns system and now charge a "restocking fee". I'm perfectly fine with that - you got benefit out of the use of the device, you should have to pay a fee for that. Otherwise it's simply stealing.

----------

I found the solution: an actual computer rental store that RENTS Macs on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

http://www.htcr.net/mac_rentals_los_angeles.php

 

[sofianito]

No, I don't think so. I'll explain - The individual has possession of the product AND is benefiting from its use. Once the item is returned & the full price paid is refunded, the company not only didn't get compensated for the use of its product, it is thereafter unable to sell the item at full retail price. The individual gained use at no expense, and the company lost revenue due to depreciation - there are no 2 ways to look at this.

Can you explain in your scenario, again, how the user is somehow paying rent? Full retail price doesn't include a rent provision. The company having to sell the unit as a refurb due to unscrupulous consumers is defacto fraud and theft. Again, it goes back to intent.

The unit will be sold at a discount to the next person as it's now a refurbished unit, and will benefit the next individual. Unfortunately, companies don't stay afloat by benefitting individuals, they stay afloat by making full retail sales.

This is more rigidly enforced in car sales. Someone "buying" a car, driving it for 2 months & then bringing it back for a full refund is ridiculous. The consumer has to sell at a depreciated value. Mainstream vendors such as Best Buy caught onto people abusing the returns system and now charge a "restocking fee". I'm perfectly fine with that - you got benefit out of the use of the device, you should have to pay a fee for that. Otherwise it's simply stealing.

----------

I found the solution: an actual computer rental store that RENTS Macs on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

http://www.htcr.net/mac_rentals_los_angeles.php

Did you read my post in hastiness? Please, re-read it carefully. I've set some conditions!

Regarding car sales, in europe you can test drive for free cars before buying. Depending on the brand and the model you could drive it from 2hours to a whole weekend. Why not do the same with notebooks provided the customer is willing to buy...

 

[underblu]

While I don't agree with what the OP is doing, I don't think this "renting" borders on moral turpitude, nor is it fraud. I do think the OP is acting in a bit dishonestly, playing the system and taking advantage of rules that were meant to protect consumers.

Fortunately I believe most people act with a bit more integrity and don't engage in this practice. I'm sure Apple and other companies take this type of "renting" into account so no need for anyone to get overly stressed.

 

[MeatRocket]

Did you read my post in hastiness? Please, re-read it carefully. I've set some conditions!

Regarding car sales, in europe you can test drive for free cars before buying. Depending on the brand and the model you could drive it from 2hours to a whole weekend. Why not do the same with notebooks provided the customer is willing to buy...

That's fine - except we're NOT in Europe AND Apple doesn't have this policy.

----------

While I don't agree with what the OP is doing, I don't think this "renting" borders on moral turpitude, nor is it fraud. I do think the OP is acting in a bit dishonestly, playing the system and taking advantage of rules that were meant to protect consumers.

Fortunately I believe most people act with a bit more integrity and don't engage in this practice. I'm sure Apple and other companies take this type of "renting" into account so no need for anyone to get overly stressed.

If we really thought it was renting instead of stealing, we wouldn't be putting "renting" in quotes would we?

 

[pgiguere1]

Even if it that was considered 100% legal, it doesn't mean it's moral.

You're basically stealing from a company just because you think you can get away with it.

Would it be the same in another scenario? Would you, for example, steal food from a grocery just because there are no employees or cameras around to see and catch you?

Such "legal fraud" is basically ruining the very principle of capitalism, where you're supposed to vote with your money in order to benefit those who provide a useful service to society. You're doing the opposite instead: penalize those who make stuff that's useful to you.

It's all about principles. You could say "well Apple has a right profit margin so they'd still end up making profits with me" but that's not the point. It's up to the company to fix prices, not you. If something's too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. It's like those people pirating stuff with the excuse that it's too expensive or has too much DRM, that doesn't make sense to me. This isn't anarchy, companies set prices and rules and you vote with your money. If you don't like the rules/prices, don't give those people money. Simple.

Now you may not get in trouble in this situation but this kind of behaviour is exactly why we can't have nice things sometimes. While your morals and whether you feel bad for "legally stealing" a large corporation is up to you only, you could also be ruining it for others who are more honest than you. New, stricter rules could be made that affect negatively even totally honest buyers. Restocking fees could come back. Apple could start gathering more personnal information about people just to stop this kind of abuse.

And we'd all pay for it, no matter what our morals are. See the crappy Xbox One restrictions that everybody's complaining about? Now imagine those kind of annoyances, but applied to several totally different things in life. That's what happens when you can't trust people, even if it's just a minority of people who act immorally.

 

[sofianito]

That's fine - except we're NOT in Europe AND Apple doesn't have this policy.

A company that offers a complete refund, which is a customer right and not a favor, is implicitly offering let's better call it "free test driving" instead of "free renting" because renting implies a paid service. Of course, the free test drive loop has an end. You cannot exchange the same product endlessly without any justification...

 

[sofianito]

Even if it that was considered 100% legal, it doesn't mean it's moral.

You're basically stealing from a company just because you think you can get away with it.

Would it be the same in another scenario? Would you, for example, steal food from a grocery just because there are no employees or cameras around to see and catch you?

Such "legal fraud" is basically ruining the very principle of capitalism, where you're supposed to vote with your money in order to benefit those who provide a useful service to society. You're doing the opposite instead: penalize those who make stuff that's useful to you.

It's all about principles. You could say "well Apple has a right profit margin so they'd still end up making profits with me" but that's not the point. It's up to the company to fix prices, not you. If something's too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. It's like those people pirating stuff with the excuse that it's too expensive or has too much DRM, that doesn't make sense to me. This isn't anarchy, companies set prices and rules and you vote with your money. If you don't like the rules/prices, don't give those people money. Simple.

Now you may not get in trouble in this situation but this kind of behaviour is exactly why we can't have nice things sometimes. While your morals and whether you feel bad for "legally stealing" a large corporation is up to you only, you could also be ruining it for others who are more honest than you. New, stricter rules could be made that affect negatively even totally honest buyers. Restocking fees could come back. Apple could start gathering more personnal information about people just to stop this kind of abuse.

And we'd all pay for it, no matter what our morals are. See the crappy Xbox One restrictions that everybody's complaining about? Now imagine those kind of annoyances, but applied to several totally different things in life. That's what happens when you can't trust people, even if it's just a minority of people who act immorally.

Apple could change any policy (it is their right) without any prior notification, but as you said, people vote with their money. When you say "we'd all pay for it", it sounds like you are condemned to vote for apple the rest of your life...

The good thing about social networks is that actions are not anymore isolated, but grouped together to form a more synchronized and powerful action that has a better impact. It would be nice if people could request apple to lower their benefit margins...

 

[maxosx]

Apple's liberal return policy is made possible by the unusually high profits they make on the products they sell. Since a huge number of people believe whatever Apple says without further thought, they fail to understand how things work. Nor do they care as long as they get what they want.

Those who abuse Apples policy are living in the fantasy that Apple's created. If it turns out in any given period that abuse of the system spikes to new highs, Apple simply adjusts their pricing accordingly. Their clever concealment of the facts, allows Apple to continue to profit at levels no other tech company enjoys.

 

[devilcm3]

Apple's liberal return policy is made possible by the unusually high profits they make on the products they sell. Since a huge number of people believe whatever Apple says without further thought, they fail to understand how things work. Nor do they care as long as they get what they want.

Those who abuse Apples policy are living in the fantasy that Apple's created. If it turns out in any given period that abuse of the system spikes to new highs, Apple simply adjusts their pricing accordingly. Their clever concealment of the facts, allows Apple to continue to profit at levels no other tech company enjoys.

yeah, i don't think that they actually lose money by selling refurbished products.
they just selling it at a lower prices, which they will still profit anyway.

 

[pgiguere1]

Apple could change any policy (it is their right) without any prior notification, but as you said, people vote with their money. When you say "we'd all pay for it", it sounds like you are condemned to vote for apple the rest of your life...

This kind of behaviour doesn't apply strictly to Apple customers. "We" was reffering to consumers in general, not just those who buy Apple.

When I say we'd all pay for it, I mean consumers in general will get stricter policies and less privacy because of the minority than can't be trusted and abuse of a company's generosity.

I'm afraid several things will change with years in many places that will give the impression that companies are "against" consumers so much they're on the defensive with strict policies and lack of privacy. This is uncool for all of us. I gave the Xbox One's DRM as an example.

Those kind of things happen when there's no trust between a company and its customers. I think it should go both ways in order for both the company and its customers to get the best of everything in the end.

 

[sectime]

I got your point. But my point was these consequentialist hypotheses are worthless since they are not realistic. Just look at the responses in this thread. Most people will feel this is just far too inappropriate to do, and as such, given the social taboo with "exploiting" the refund policies, there is no risk that his actions would ruin it for the rest of us, since few if any will engage in this behavior. So my point, which went over your head, was stop spreading fear and paranoia with fictions/fairytales.

Well Duh! Avoiding being a douchebag is how most people live. Douchebags require nondouchebags to run their douchebag schemes. Another douchebag would just kick the crap out of them.

 

[okwhatev]

Well wasn't that a lot of judgement of my charecter? good lord! no matter, last night I was in the apple store at the grove buying $100 of thunderbolt cables and my salesgirl decided to show off her iOS 7 equipped iPhone 5 to me. After playing with it and thoroughly nerding out over details and talking way too much OCD shop... I came right out and explained that I had just purchased the 13" air and I really was thinking of returning it... well... the whole truth and the whole situation.

She not only thought the return policy period was perfect for my situation, but grabbed two managers just to verify the policy details with them. They both came over and talked with me and BOTH recommended for me to continue trying out different models of the computers until the retina pro refresh is released. They all agreed that they would do the same thing in my position and there would be ABSOULTELY no problem with the returns.

Then they grabbed a third manager to check for me if i could indeed return a apple refurb purchased from the online store in an actual retail store in the same 14-day window and this third manager confirmed it and added "go wild" with the whole "trying out different models" thing because thats why they have the policy, so I will be happy with my purchase and that its such a huge investment that it only makes sense to take advantage of this policy so that i have a great computer while waiting for the refresh to be released... which should be sometime within the next few weeks.

So four different employees, three of them managers, at one of the flagship apple stores in LA, all not only said I should use their return policy in this manner, but in fact encouraged it. The funny thing is I had already convinced myself NOT to do it, due to the hassle, but the overwhelming support by the apple store employees to do it has pushed me into possibly doing it again. at least now I won't have any hesitation about doing it after such a supportive round of encouragement to do so by the company themselves.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I came right out and explained that I had just purchased the 13" air and I really was thinking of returning it... well... the whole truth and the whole situation. She not only thought the return policy period was perfect for my situation, but grabbed two managers just to verify the policy details with them. They both came over and talked with me and BOTH recommended for me to continue trying out different models of the computers until the retina pro refresh is released. They all agreed that they would do the same thing in my position and there would be ABSOULTELY no problem with the returns.

So two cops come up to you and tell you this is "their block," and that they are OK if you want to "borrow" a candy bar from the snack shop. Under your logic it would be perfectly ethical to do so because they are cops and gave you permission to steal.

Back to Apple... I wonder if this story got back to Apple brass if they feel the same way as these managers or if they'd get disciplined or worse.

 

[Tinmania]

Did you read my post in hastiness? Please, re-read it carefully. I've set some conditions!

Regarding car sales, in europe you can test drive for free cars before buying. Depending on the brand and the model you could drive it from 2hours to a whole weekend. Why not do the same with notebooks provided the customer is willing to buy...

Car analogies generally suck, but OK let's play it out.

A test drive is what it is. Apple offers that too: there are whole stores filled with products to test drive.

Back to renting. Want to rent a car? That is what Avis and Hertz are for. Want to buy the new car that won't be delivered for a week or so? The dealer may offer you a loaner for free to tide you over. But that loaner will most certainly not be a brand-new vehicle (unless they intend it to remain a loaner).

Likewise, there are companies that really do rent computers. Indeed that is what I thought this thread was about when I read the title. Silly me.




Michael

 

[sofianito]

Car analogies generally suck, but OK let's play it out.

You are playing it out wrongly . Let me remind you the context of my posts: I am talking about the case of someone who is definitely going to buy a computer but is having hard time to decide between two or three different models. By no mean, I am supporting someone who abuses Apple policy just for killing time until the haswell is released...

A test drive is what it is. Apple offers that too: there are whole stores filled with products to test drive.

The last time I took a chair for my wife, an employee rushed telling me the chairs are for one-to-one training or people waiting at genius bar, until the sucker realized my wife was pregnant. The conditions for test driving a computer at the apple store are very bad: you can't sit, light condition is bad, computers are running kiosk app, the store is crowded and noisy, some people sweat and smell bad, other shameless people fart...
I wouldn't mind to test drive there if they accommodate a lounge with good light conditions, free coffee machine,...etc. Is it too expensive for Apple or are they too greedy? Don't potential buyers deserve this treatment for the price they are going to pay for?

Don't you know Steve Jobs used to test prototypes during weeks and months at home? In fact, running your most used applications at home with the light conditions you are used to are "the acid test"!. Remember, we are talking about $1600+ notebooks

Back to renting. Want to rent a car? That is what Avis and Hertz are for. Want to buy the new car that won't be delivered for a week or so? The dealer may offer you a loaner for free to tide you over. But that loaner will most certainly not be a brand-new vehicle (unless they intend it to remain a loaner).
Likewise, there are companies that really do rent computers. Indeed that is what I thought this thread was about when I read the title. Silly me.

Michael

Following your reasoning, I am abusing Apple policy if the following scenario happens: I am decided and purchase let's say a MBA, but after a week I find out it doesn't fit me, then I return it and order a cMBP. After 10 days, I am not convinced and find it too bulky, then return it and order finally a 13" rMBP and keep it.
According to you, I should have rented the 3 models before buying? .

Tell me: Have you ever rented speakers, webcams, mouses, TVs, BlueRays,...etc before buying them?

 

[samuelk0814]

I believe the most important factor to take into account is the 'intention'. If the intention of an individual is not harmful, then there is nothing wrong with that. For instance, if an individual is having hard time to choose between a MBA, 13" rMBP, or 15" rMBP, and knowing apple products are not cheap, then there is nothing wrong if he spends 13x3 days testing those notebooks provided he:
1) keeps or purchases one of them after the whole trial period (39 days) is over.
2) each exchanged notebook must be returned in a perfect condition (no scratches, no dried ketchup over the keyboard ,...etc)

By purchasing one of these notebooks, the individual is paying somehow a rent, don't you think so? How? you would ask me. Well, he will pay the notebook at full price, while the returned ones would be sold with a discount in the refurbished section benefiting other individuals who buy them. It sounds fair to me, don't you think so?
Someone who cares about apple's benefits margins (probably an investor) would argue apple is losing money?!. Wrong, because risks and most of use cases (refund, exchanges, shipping costs,...etc) are reflected on the retail price. So, at the end everyone is benefiting from the system, not only the corporations!

Now, statistically speaking, what is the probability having every individual proceeding in the same modus operandi as the OP? It is very low. To say a number, maybe 1 of each 1000 customers...

Regarding the 'individual's intention' I mentioned in the beginning, I don't think one could have a harmful intention against a company he is willing to buy from. On the other hand, the history is likely haunted of non ethical behaviors of companies paying anonymously customers like you and me to undermine other companies sales...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

 

[Tinmania]

You are playing it out wrongly . Let me remind you the context of my posts: I am talking about the case of someone who is definitely going to buy a computer but is having hard time to decide between two or three different models. By no mean, I am supporting someone who abuses Apple policy just for killing time until the haswell is released...

I based it on the premise that the OP laid out: clearly no intent to buy anything till the model he wants is released.

Your scenario, which could very well be mine too, is of course very different then that. We don't disagree on that it seems.

Following your reasoning, I am abusing Apple policy if the following scenario happens: I am decided and purchase let's say a MBA, but after a week I find out it doesn't fit me, then I return it and order a cMBP. After 10 days, I am not convinced and find it too bulky, then return it and order finally a 13" rMBP and keep it.
According to you, I should have rented the 3 models before buying? .

Tell me: Have you ever rented speakers, webcams, mouses, TVs, BlueRays,...etc before buying them?

Of course you are not abusing Apple policy. But back to the OP I don't care how he justifies it, he is.




Michael

 

[wonderspark]

I would say using a loophole to your advantage is no different than Apple using loopholes to avoid paying taxes overseas... such as they do in the whole Ireland tax loophole issue. Some of the arguments made here would apply to Apple, Inc. themselves, who claim they are not breaking any laws by avoiding taxes, while many would say they are wrong for dodging taxes with clever tricks.

If they give you a legal way to rent laptops at no charge, you'll probably sleep just as well at night as Apple's corporate brass and lawyers do... except their beds are stuffed with money, and blessed with holy unicorn tears.

 

[fskywalker]

You are playing it out wrongly . Let me remind you the context of my posts: I am talking about the case of someone who is definitely going to buy a computer but is having hard time to decide between two or three different models. By no mean, I am supporting someone who abuses Apple policy just for killing time until the haswell is released...


The last time I took a chair for my wife, an employee rushed telling me the chairs are for one-to-one training or people waiting at genius bar, until the sucker realized my wife was pregnant. The conditions for test driving a computer at the apple store are very bad: you can't sit, light condition is bad, computers are running kiosk app, the store is crowded and noisy, some people sweat and smell bad, other shameless people fart...
I wouldn't mind to test drive there if they accommodate a lounge with good light conditions, free coffee machine,...etc. Is it too expensive for Apple or are they too greedy? Don't potential buyers deserve this treatment for the price they are going to pay for?

Don't you know Steve Jobs used to test prototypes during weeks and months at home? In fact, running your most used applications at home with the light conditions you are used to are "the acid test"!. Remember, we are talking about $1600+ notebooks



Following your reasoning, I am abusing Apple policy if the following scenario happens: I am decided and purchase let's say a MBA, but after a week I find out it doesn't fit me, then I return it and order a cMBP. After 10 days, I am not convinced and find it too bulky, then return it and order finally a 13" rMBP and keep it.
According to you, I should have rented the 3 models before buying? .

I would agree with your reasoning assuming there was no intention from the begininig in testing all 3 units before buying the last one, guess that is why stores allow you to play with the machines in the store so that you can get the feeling of each before buying.