No doubt buy apple care.
You should pick up one from ebay, I picked one up for the macbook pro before for $215.
You should pick up one from ebay, I picked one up for the macbook pro before for $215.
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.
To get applecare or not too
- Thread starter tracetritt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No question. AppleCare is a no-brainer, especially in your case. I always recommend that those who have a laptop purchase AppleCare. Unlike a desktop, a laptop does not spend its life sitting on a desk.
If you are going to get it ever, just get it now. Even if you wait a month or two it will still be good for only 3 years after the purchase date of the laptop, not the date you buy the plan. So you might as well have full use out of it.
Another question... does the AppleCare only covers factory defects or let's say if I want to replace my LCD because I scratched it "hypothetically" they won't do it right?
Manufacturing or part defects only. If you damage the computer, Apple doesn't cover that. But if your screen starts flickering, Apple will fix it for free while under warranty.
It's an individualized decision. In some cases it will make more sense to get it, in others it won't. Not necessarily a complete money waster.
Especially with anyone owning the macbook pro with an nvidia 8600m gt gpu, I would think apple care is a must.
Why are you so concerned about others buying AppleCare? It's not YOUR money! Everyone has the right to decide if it's worth it to them. As you can see in this thread, many decide to go without it; many decide to buy it. Yours is one opinion. Others have different opinions. It's up to each of us to decide what's best for us. Relax, and watch your stock go up!
Relax, and watch your stock go up!
HAHAHA, I resisted saying the same thing! But, as a fellow stock holder (Long), I was biting my tongue!
3 times!
Applecare has more than paid for itself in my case. I've had 2 battery swaps, and one complete system replacement. All of that happened right outside my 1 year wty...
..but that's just my experience. I'm sure there are people who have never had a problem and felt they'd wasted $ on something that was never used. To each his own, but if it's your first Mac and first laptop, buy it. If you get an edu discount it's even better, that knocks about $50 off I think.
Well, as I said before:
AppleCare is a poor investment. It's priced to be abundantly profitable for Apple. All extended warranties are very profitable for the sellers. This should tell us everything we need to know about their value, but apparently not. Some will still add two and two and get five.
I am constantly amazed by the number of people who will volunteer to give Apple more of their money. As an Apple stockholder, I can hardly object, so by all means, go ahead and buy it. Just don't argue that it's a viable financial decision when clearly it is not.
AppleCare is a poor investment. It's priced to be abundantly profitable for Apple. All extended warranties are very profitable for the sellers. This should tell us everything we need to know about their value, but apparently not. Some will still add two and two and get five.
I am constantly amazed by the number of people who will volunteer to give Apple more of their money. As an Apple stockholder, I can hardly object, so by all means, go ahead and buy it. Just don't argue that it's a viable financial decision when clearly it is not.
But why? You're not quite explaining your rationale. What if some component or other fails multiple times and needs replacing, thereby exceeding in replacement value what you paid for the extended warranty?
You could say the same about insurance -- sure, you may never use it, and thus is a "poor" investment after the fact -- but if you do use it, it will present excellent value indeed. The point is that you're hedging against a future risk so you can never really know if it's a "poor" or "good" investment from the ex ante standpoint. Care to elaborate on your reasoning?
The reasoning is that over time, on average, you will pay out more in premiums than you will receive in services. This is the case for all forms of insurance, but is especially true for extended warranties, which are notoriously profitable for the sellers. This is why they are pushed so hard by consumer electronics retailers.
There is such a thing as being over-insured. In general you should not be buying more insurance than you actually need. If replacing or repairing your $1,200 MacBook in year two or three of ownership would be a major financial hardship, then it might be wise to buy a policy. But keep in mind that your computer in year two or three will have lost a lot of value, and could probably be completely replaced for half of its original purchase price. Also keep in mind that Apple knows the failure rate on their products and prices AppleCare accordingly, and always to make a tidy profit. So buying an AppleCare policy is like betting against the house when the house knows the odds and you don't.
Again, that is the case with all forms of insurance. They do the actuarial heavy lifting and know the odds on average, whereas you don't know in your particular case (which is what matters when considering whether the hedge provides value or not). Likewise, all insurance companies operate to make a tidy profit -- that's what firms do or try to do. It's their raison d'etre That fact alone does not make something "poor value". Otherwise everything would be poor value by definition.
So, this part of your rationale, we can discard.
As for the depreciation in value of a 2/3 year old machine -- that doesn't quite make sense. How is replacing it with another 2/3 year old machine for half the original purchase price any different from getting it repaired under an extended warranty? You're still paying out, either way.
And I imagine the calculus changes with the maxed out MBP. It's a slightly more expensive machine that maintains a higher resale value over time. So the somewhat ridiculous scenario of buying a 2 year old machine to replace your broken down 2 year old machine (instead of repairing it) will be more expensive than AppleCare in the event. You seem to be suggesting that WHETHER disaster strikes or not, AppleCare is a priori never good value.
You simply can't know this.
So, this part of your rationale, we can discard.
As for the depreciation in value of a 2/3 year old machine -- that doesn't quite make sense. How is replacing it with another 2/3 year old machine for half the original purchase price any different from getting it repaired under an extended warranty? You're still paying out, either way.
And I imagine the calculus changes with the maxed out MBP. It's a slightly more expensive machine that maintains a higher resale value over time. So the somewhat ridiculous scenario of buying a 2 year old machine to replace your broken down 2 year old machine (instead of repairing it) will be more expensive than AppleCare in the event. You seem to be suggesting that WHETHER disaster strikes or not, AppleCare is a priori never good value.
You simply can't know this.
So you can "discard" part of my rationale because it's accurate? Nice try.
Yes, this is true for all forms of insurance, which is why as a general rule, it's financially unwise to be over-insured. As a guide, you should not buy insurance for risks which you can afford to cover yourself should they occur. For instance, do you take a $100, $250 or a $500 deductible on your auto collision insurance? You should always take the highest one that you can afford to pay. This is the optimum financial decision.
Also to be taken into consideration on consumer products is that you are insuring an item which depreciates in value very rapidly. It makes sense to consider the premium as a percentage of the value of the product at the end of the term of coverage, not at the beginning. Looked at this way, you might find that the premium is a third to even half of the value of the product at that point in its lifespan. This might make some difference when considering the value proposition of the insurance. Also consider whether at the end of three years you might not prefer to apply the cost of insurance to buying a new product instead of repairing the old one.
You can play "for instance" games all day long, but they don't change the basic fact, which is that extended warranties are a losing deal for consumers. Over time, you will pay more in premiums than you will collect in services. This isn't mere speculation. The sellers make this an absolute fact.
If, knowing this, you still want to buy extended warranties, then go for it. At least you're doing it as an informed consumer. Just don't try to tell me that they are a "good deal" for consumers when we know that the sellers make completely certain that they are not.
Yes, this is true for all forms of insurance, which is why as a general rule, it's financially unwise to be over-insured. As a guide, you should not buy insurance for risks which you can afford to cover yourself should they occur. For instance, do you take a $100, $250 or a $500 deductible on your auto collision insurance? You should always take the highest one that you can afford to pay. This is the optimum financial decision.
Also to be taken into consideration on consumer products is that you are insuring an item which depreciates in value very rapidly. It makes sense to consider the premium as a percentage of the value of the product at the end of the term of coverage, not at the beginning. Looked at this way, you might find that the premium is a third to even half of the value of the product at that point in its lifespan. This might make some difference when considering the value proposition of the insurance. Also consider whether at the end of three years you might not prefer to apply the cost of insurance to buying a new product instead of repairing the old one.
You can play "for instance" games all day long, but they don't change the basic fact, which is that extended warranties are a losing deal for consumers. Over time, you will pay more in premiums than you will collect in services. This isn't mere speculation. The sellers make this an absolute fact.
If, knowing this, you still want to buy extended warranties, then go for it. At least you're doing it as an informed consumer. Just don't try to tell me that they are a "good deal" for consumers when we know that the sellers make completely certain that they are not.
You still haven't explained why you're getting so worked up over OTHER people's buying decisions. Your rationale makes sense to YOU, but not necessarily to everyone else. Insurance of any kind is a gamble. You're paying someone else a fee to assume a risk for you. It provides peace of mind that if something goes wrong, you won't bear the unexpected financial consequences. It's up to each buyer to decide if the gamble is worth it.
You're wasting your time if you think your arguments are going to stop everyone from buying AppleCare. It's a responsible choice, just like choosing not to buy it. It's determined by each person, based on their willingness to assume risk and their financial situation. For me, the extra cost of AppleCare is meaningless, compared to the cost of having something seriously go wrong with my MBP.
Again, you haven't explained why you're on such a campaign to discourage OTHER people from making THEIR decisions on whether or not THEY buy AppleCare. Their choices don't affect you, other than raising the price of both of your shares of Apple stock (as if Apple stock rises and falls based on AppleCare sales! LOL). Like I'm sure many in these forums are, I'm an Apple stockholder, but I don't feel the need to brag about it.
No -- because it's absurd. Since all firms are profit-seeking, the fact that they make a tidy profit does not make everything they produce "poor value". It would mean that everything produced by profitable firms are "poor value" by definition, a clearly silly claim.
Right. But we don't know if AppleCare over-insures. That's the point. You can't know and I can't know in any particular case until after the event.
Even assuming that, you're forgetting that not repairing the machine means you forego the FULL value of the machine then -- not third, not half. So the following:
. . . doesn't at all make sense. You're not just foregoing "the cost of insurance" -- you're also foregoing the value of the repaired Mac!
This is news, how? How else do you think insurance companies make money? If they paid out more than they collected in premiums, they would be losing money and wouldn't be in the business in the first place. Of course they are leveraging risk and the value you get is the hedge in risk they assume for you. That's the entire point of insurance. You seem to think that hedging against risk has no value -- that value only consists in what you can claim in the event of catastrophe (which you can't know is coming). This is false and a fundamental misconception of what insurance entails. It is the assumption of risk that is itself a valuable service. Not factoring this into the calculus means you miss the point entirely.
Economics is not a zero sum game. It can be a good deal for both sides, for obvious reasons. Because 1. you can't know if your machine will fail 2. if it fails you won't be forced to junk the machine because of high repair costs 3. the insurer is able to spread and hedge the risk in a way that one person cannot.
As to 1 and 2, your assertion of "bad value" only works if you know before hand that it won't fail, or that repair will cost less than what you paid for AppleCare. If the repair costs more, you've already got good value. If it costs less, you're only losing a slight amount on the premium. Is the risk of that slight loss on the premium worth eschewing? You are in effect trading in that risk (of a slight loss) for the risk of junking the whole machine. Either way, you are trading a small risk for a larger one. If you're willing to assume that risk and bet on the longevity of your Mac, that's fine. But seeing as you can't know before hand if you've guessed correctly, assessments of "bad value" before the event can only be pure guesswork.
3 is self-explanatory.
In sum, your absolutist position that it can never be good value is indefensible. The more reasonable position is that it can be good value, depending on what actually happens to your Mac during its lifetime. Unlike you, no one here is saying that it is absolutely good/bad value independent of the factual situation.
Saying "I've saved thousands over the years by not getting car insurance" (and yes, car insurers make profits too) is meaningless if you're just generalizing from your own luck of never having been in a car accident. It has zero rational basis.
I'm pretty sure you haven't either read or followed what I've already written. Either way, I don't see the point in repeating it. Suffice to say, I'm not "worked up" over other's people's buying decisions -- but this should be more than abundantly clear from what I've said previously. What I'm doing is offering up the other side of the value proposition, one that rarely gets introduced into these discussions. What people do with that information is up to them.
Also, it should be clear that I'm not "bragging" about being an Apple shareholder. I mention this to demonstrate that while it's in my financial interests to encourage people to buy AppleCare, I still would like them to consider how it pencils out.
I don't think people buy insurance as an investment. It's mostly for peace of mind just in case something does happen in the future. It's a gamble and a risk. Some people prefer to err on the side of being protected from a possible problem in the future. While that may have no value for some, for others it is good value.
If my computer works flawlessly for 3 years, I don't feel my money was wasted. I still had peace of mind for 3 years, and was fully covered during that time in case anything did happen. To me, the price was well worth it.
You apparently haven't understood anything I've said. Put it this way: If I offered you 50-1 odds on your ability to roll three sixes in a row on a die, would you take it?
I totally agree, and I understand this. The value of say, a car insurance policy, is to insure you against a loss which you could not afford to pay. But the value of a extended warranty is often this elusive concept of "peace of mind," which is not quantifiable. My argument is limited to financial value. I find that most people don't understand the financial proposition of extended warranties, which are indeed tilted heavily towards the seller. No need to make more of what I am saying than what I am saying.
That's true, which is probably why it's profitable for companies. Some people put more value on "peace of mind" than others, so, it comes down to a purely personal decision whether or not to buy it.
In my own experience, I bought AppleCare for all but 2 computers in the past. 1 of those 2 computers did have a problem that ended up costing me about $600 to fix on my own, so, in hindsight AppleCare would have been worth the money. Of the 4 other computers I've insured with AppleCare, 2 of them needed service (one of them 3 times). So, even though I didn't need to use AppleCare for 2 computers that were covered, I still feel that in the long run I saved money by getting AppleCare.
But everyone is different and will therefore have different opinions and experiences with AppleCare.
Great discussion aside,
I'd get apple care for the possibility of replacement for a new machine should mine ever cr*p out on me. All it takes is heavy computing. In my case I have a 2.16ghz C2D refurb still with 2.5 years left in the warranty. Plenty of time for it to show its true colors.
I'd get apple care for the possibility of replacement for a new machine should mine ever cr*p out on me. All it takes is heavy computing. In my case I have a 2.16ghz C2D refurb still with 2.5 years left in the warranty. Plenty of time for it to show its true colors.
If you're one of those people that have 'the touch of death' using computers, I'd say that it's well worth it.
--rob
--rob