Upgrade 15" low end macbook pro or buy the high end?

[Crunch]

Upgrade the RAM and by yourself as others have suggested and no, the warranty is not void if you remove the mostly useless SuperDrive.

Apple says a lot of things, such as that 8GB is the maximum amount in a MacBook Pro. It isn't. I've been enjoying 16GB of RAM in my 2011 MBP without any issues for a few months now. Apple also doesn't want you to know that you have SATA rev. III (6Gbps), so that they can sell you overpriced rev. II (3Gbps) SSD's.

And for the sake of argument, even if Apple did void the warranty for MacBook's that have the SuperDrive removed, just open that baby back up, plug the stupid thing back in and take it in for service, as needed, with the Not-so-SuperDrive in place, and take it back out when it's fixed. Not worth arguing about. ;-)

 

[Naimfan]

If that was the case, my laptop would not be getting repaired right now.

From a "legal perspective" Apple has to void a warranty and the burden of proof would be on Apple to show that the nullification of the warranty is justified.

In fact, the warranty doesn't even state what you say it does:



The key operative is "Damage caused by." In other words, if you don't cause damage, you are still covered.

In addition, the docs say nothing about the nullification or voiding of the warranty by those acts. I would love to see your source, maybe I am missing something.

Another source, for completeness, covering the general hardware warranty.
http://images.apple.com/legal/warranty/docs/cpuwarranty.pdf



Again, the mere act does not void the warranty. Any warranty nullification is at the determination of Apple.

Sigh.

Never mind. Clearly you don't understand what "from a legal perspective" means. At law, the action is what is relevant. Whether the action is discovered or not is, at law, irrelevant. For example - if you enter a home without permission, you have committed trespass. Whether anyone sees you or not does not matter, or, if you prefer, is irrelevant.

 

[thekev]

Sigh.

Never mind. Clearly you don't understand what "from a legal perspective" means. At law, the action is what is relevant. Whether the action is discovered or not is, at law, irrelevant. For example - if you enter a home without permission, you have committed trespass. Whether anyone sees you or not does not matter, or, if you prefer, is irrelevant.

I do understand this. For the OP, he's coming from a 2007 model. Tampering with the optical bay wouldn't even be a necessary step to seeing a drastic increase in performance. Even the current generation of HDD technology would be an upgrade in that regard. If he doesn't want to mess with it, he could in fact wait for prices on higher capacity SSDs to fall and replace the HDD entirely at that point.

For the OP, if you're really price sensitive, you could even go with an early 2011 refurb to save money. I'd pick one of the quad core models, but beyond that, I think you'll be fine. Typically while picking the high end one will cost you more, it won't extend the usable life of the machine unless there's a truly significant difference such as dual core vs. quad, ram capacity, or integrated vs. discrete graphics (not just from a raw power perspective, but also one of drivers and support). Don't let a few ghz get to you. In this kind of situation, if one won't do the job, the other is unlikely to change that.

 

[Lisa89]

Why not get the early 2011 high end model with the anti-glare hi-res display for $1599?

http://slickdeals.net/f/3818312-Mic...-Anti-glare-February-2011-2-3GHz-Core-i7-1599

Because I live in Belgium and there's a local shop nearby which provides good service. When I have a problem, they fix it within 1 or 2 days. (my computer ALWAYS crashes right before a deadline!)
Plus, I don't like spending a huge amount of money online.

----------

I do understand this. For the OP, he's coming from a 2007 model. Tampering with the optical bay wouldn't even be a necessary step to seeing a drastic increase in performance. Even the current generation of HDD technology would be an upgrade in that regard. If he doesn't want to mess with it, he could in fact wait for prices on higher capacity SSDs to fall and replace the HDD entirely at that point.

For the OP, if you're really price sensitive, you could even go with an early 2011 refurb to save money. I'd pick one of the quad core models, but beyond that, I think you'll be fine. Typically while picking the high end one will cost you more, it won't extend the usable life of the machine unless there's a truly significant difference such as dual core vs. quad, ram capacity, or integrated vs. discrete graphics (not just from a raw power perspective, but also one of drivers and support). Don't let a few ghz get to you. In this kind of situation, if one won't do the job, the other is unlikely to change that.

The only old ones available in my area are the 13" dual core or older, or the expensive 17" upgraded one (which cost more than a new 15"). They don't give much discount on them, because it's still 'apple' (so you get less value for your money!)

It's not that i'm short on cash, just looking for the best option. I know by experience that, once i have my new MBP, i won't change much. Now i'm spending, i have to do it right So i don't have to worry about it for a few years. (Plus, my 2007 MBP is driving me crazy! I want something decent...)

Oh, and the 'he' is actually a 'she'

 

[calderone]

Sigh.

Never mind. Clearly you don't understand what "from a legal perspective" means. At law, the action is what is relevant. Whether the action is discovered or not is, at law, irrelevant. For example - if you enter a home without permission, you have committed trespass. Whether anyone sees you or not does not matter, or, if you prefer, is irrelevant.

I'll begin by saying that your attempt to include "legal perspective" is laughable and a clear attempt to conflate your poor argument with puffery.

Despite that, I will indulge you. First, of course the action is relevant, however we know there are other factors: intent, state of mind, etc. Be clear here as well, opening your computer and taking something out is not a legal matter. Nullifying a contract (the warranty) is, however, a legal matter.

Moving on to your example of the trespasser, it is nothing more than a tautology; it can easily fool the casual observer that you have made a point but in reality you have said nothing that relates to the debate at hand.

if you enter a home without permission, you have committed trespass

Yes, the person has trespassed. However, this self-evident statement tells us nothing. Your claim was that the mere act of removing the optical drive voided the warranty. Abstracting this claim and fitting it to the trespass, the equivalent would be something like; the mere act of entering a home without permission results in jail time. In other words, the act leads to a seemingly automatic consequence. We know of course that is not how it works.

Funnily enough, the missing piece of the puzzle is legal process (something you seem to be very keen and knowledgeable about). The perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty and due process is followed to establish wrongdoing. If there is no evidence of the wrongdoing then no crime was committed and most importantly no consequence is enforced.

The consequence is key, as your most recent argument removed the consequence and supplanted a truism in its place; bordering on equivocation but so poorly constructed I don't know if I would give it the credit.

We can also flip the original claim to match your most recent. If you remove an item from your computer you have committed modification. Which of course says nothing at all.

Lastly, you spent time saying nothing as opposed to countering what I presented straight from Apple: that the mere act of modifying the computer does not void the warranty. Apple says nothing of the sort, Apple simply says they will not cover damage caused by such acts and even then, Apple does not say the warranty will be voided if they find that to be the case.

Conclusion: If you open your machine and break something AND Apple can prove it, you are going to have to foot the repair costs. Only at that point can Apple take the step of voiding your warranty but this would most assuredly be subject to appeal as Apple makes no mention of the policy surrounding warranty cancellation. In addition, Apple would be required to make a prorated refund in most US States.

Simply making unauthorized modifications does not automatically void the warranty as claimed by individuals here.

 

[Naimfan]

Simply making unauthorized modifications does not automatically void the warranty as claimed by individuals here.

I'll begin by ignoring all your irrelevant statements, as it is clear you don't have the foggiest understanding of the law on warranties in the US. More generally, you don't understand what "at law" means.

Your quoted claim is incorrect. Making unauthorized modifications, or a user servicing what is not listed as "user-serviceable," does indeed void the warranty. Because Apple explicitly lists what is user-serviceable, and states that there are no other user-serviceable parts inside, removing the optical drive does indeed void the warranty. When you purchase the computer, and agree to the warranty terms by using the computer, you agree not to modify the computer and to not service anything not listed as user-serviceable. The consequence of not agreeing to those warranty terms is straightforward - the warranty no longer applies, because you, the user, have breached the warranty agreement.

Or, if you'd prefer a concrete example, a client of a colleague replaced the hard drive in his 2007 Macbook Pro and later had a totally unrelated failure. Despite it being under Applecare, Apple refused the repair because the user had violated the terms of the Applecare agreement. The user sued and the case was dismissed for failure to follow the dispute resolution process agreed to in Applecare. After going all the way through the process, the arbitrator ruled that because the user had indeed breached the terms of the Applecare agreement, Apple had no legal obligation to repair the computer.

Finally, you are wrong regarding a requirement for Apple to pro-rate a refund of the warranty. That only applies to Applecare - the factory warranty has no such provision, and there is no law that provides otherwise.

 

[calderone]

I'll begin by ignoring all your irrelevant statements, as it is clear you don't have the foggiest understanding of the law on warranties in the US. More generally, you don't understand what "at law" means.

Cute. Why not point them out? Sounds like you just don't understand.

Your quoted claim is incorrect. Making unauthorized modifications, or a user servicing what is not listed as "user-serviceable," does indeed void the warranty. Because Apple explicitly lists what is user-serviceable, and states that there are no other user-serviceable parts inside, removing the optical drive does indeed void the warranty. When you purchase the computer, and agree to the warranty terms by using the computer, you agree not to modify the computer and to not service anything not listed as user-serviceable. The consequence of not agreeing to those warranty terms is straightforward - the warranty no longer applies, because you, the user, have breached the warranty agreement

Source please. Specifically where it states the warranty no longer applies, in other words voided; we know it says they don't have to cover the provisions laid out in the warranty ("damage caused by....")

Or, if you'd prefer a concrete example, a client of a colleague replaced the hard drive in his 2007 Macbook Pro and later had a totally unrelated failure. Despite it being under Applecare, Apple refused the repair because the user had violated the terms of the Applecare agreement. The user sued and the case was dismissed for failure to follow the dispute resolution process agreed to in Applecare. After going all the way through the process, the arbitrator ruled that because the user had indeed breached the terms of the Applecare agreement, Apple had no legal obligation to repair the computer.

Legal obligation to repair the computer under warranty is substantially different from voiding the warranty.

In fact, thank you for this as it proves my point. As I pointed out in the quoted lines from the Apple warranty documents, it plainly says the warranty does not cover a number of items including user service which causes damage.

As I stated, if Apple can show damage caused by the user, the user will have to foot the bill.

Finally, you are wrong regarding a requirement for Apple to pro-rate a refund of the warranty. That only applies to Applecare - the factory warranty has no such provision, and there is no law that provides otherwise.

Not wrong, you chose to assume I was referring to the standard warranty and not AppleCare. Thanks for playing though.

 

[squeakr]

If there is no evidence of the wrongdoing then no crime was committed and most importantly no consequence is enforced.

Really??? Without evidence no crime was committed? I think you meant that the accused can not be convicted of a crime if no supporting evidence exists. The fact is the crime was still committed whether evidence exists or not.

 

[calderone]

Really??? Without evidence no crime was committed? I think you meant that the accused can not be convicted of a crime if no supporting evidence exists. The fact is the crime was still committed whether evidence exists or not.

Sorry, poor wording. I think you understand what I was saying, and indeed you gave the fair interpretation of my statement subsequently. Would you like to contribute or point out misstatements?

In addition, if there is no evidence that someone entered a home can we really say a crime was committed? If I simply say: "You squekr, entered my home without permission" is that sufficient in showing that a crime was committed?

More relevant to the discussion at hand, if Apple simply states: "You made modifications to this computer that were not authorized," is that sufficient in justifying a denial of warranty repair?

 

[squeakr]

More relevant to the discussion at hand, if Apple simply states: "You made modifications to this computer that were not authorized," is that sufficient in justifying a denial of warranty repair?

If they can prove that the modifications were made then yes. The screws will have marks as will the mounts that would show the removal, so the proof would exists.

The problem is that most will not be denied the warranty claims, but this does not mean that the warranty was not voided.

When people claim it does not void the warranty that is incorrect, it does void the warranty. Will you not receive warranty repairs, more than likely not, but reporting that the warranty is not voided is to false.

If you speed, you are breaking the law. If you speed all the time and are never caught and convicted, or if caught given anything more than a warning, does not mean that you can tell people that speeding does not break the law (the same as in the warranty issue). It is still breaking the law.

 

[calderone]

If they can prove that the modifications were made then yes. The screws will have marks as will the mounts that would show the removal, so the proof would exists.

Yes precisely, they need proof. Marks in the machine could point to a previous valid repair. And again, I removed mine yet I just got my machine repaired. In addition it does not say modification is sufficient in and of itself. It states "Damage caused by...."

Please read the previous post covering the direct quotes from the warranty document.

The problem is that most will not be denied the warranty claims, but this does not mean that the warranty was not voided.

What? So you get a warranty claim, but the warranty was voided?

When people claim it does not void the warranty that is incorrect, it does void the warranty. Will you not receive warranty repairs, more than likely not, but reporting that the warranty is not voided is to false.

This frankly is like the above and doesn't make any sense. To void something is to make it no longer legally binding. If Apple repairs your machine and continues repairing it afterward, the warranty is not voided. If they did void it, yet continued repair without an agreement Apple would be in a poor legal position.

What you are saying needs clarification.

If you speed, you are breaking the law. If you speed all the time and are never caught and convicted, or if caught given anything more than a warning, does not mean that you can tell people that speeding does not break the law (the same as in the warranty issue). It is still breaking the law.

First of all, once again this is why the mention of "legal perspective" by the other guy was hasty and haphazard. It does nothing but confuse the situation as these two issues are not equivalent.

Apples terms say that causing damaged during modification is not covered; it does not say that making those modifications lead to warranty nullification. Thereby the mere act of for example replacing an optical drive does not void the warranty.

Finally, Apple does not say that in the event of determining damaged caused by modification the warranty agreement will be voided; it simply says that they will not cover repairs found to be caused by modification.

 

[squeakr]

First of all, once again this is why the mention of "legal perspective" by the other guy was hasty and haphazard. It does nothing but confuse the situation as these two issues are not equivalent.

Apples terms say that causing damaged during modification is not covered; it does not say that making those modifications lead to warranty nullification. Thereby the mere act of for example replacing an optical drive does not void the warranty.

Finally, Apple does not say that in the event of determining damaged caused by modification the warranty agreement will be voided; it simply says that they will not cover repairs found to be caused by modification.

This is your interpretation of the document. In fact it says damages caused by the modification. This does not mean it happens during the act, as you claim is the reason for not having a warranty. If the optibay you installed shorts out during normal use and takes out the logic board this is damaged caused by the modification, even though the installation damaged nothing.

I am not continuing on with this argument, as the point is moot and you will believe what you want. You keep claiming Naifam is spouting mistruths, but I have been around here long enough to know that he is a lawyer and knows the ins and outs of the laws. I am not going to argue these points anymore. Just because something is voided does not mean that you will still get away with things. Like I said before with the speeding example, you broke the law. Does that mean that after so many times speeding your license is automatically revoked, whether you have a ticket or not? No, but it does mean that you have voided the terms of your driver's license.

I am out now as this has gotten way off track of the original intent of this thread.

 

[calderone]

This is your interpretation of the document. In fact it says damages caused by the modification. This does not mean it happens during the act, as you claim is the reason for not having a warranty. If the optibay you installed shorts out during normal use and takes out the logic board this is damaged caused by the modification, even though the installation damaged nothing.

During would include the act as well as the duration of the modification remaining in the machine.

I am not continuing on with this argument, as the point is moot and you will believe what you want. You keep claiming Naifam is spouting mistruths, but I have been around here long enough to know that he is a lawyer and knows the ins and outs of the laws. I am not going to argue these points anymore. Just because something is voided does not mean that you will still get away with things. Like I said before with the speeding example, you broke the law. Does that mean that after so many times speeding your license is automatically revoked, whether you have a ticket or not? No, but it does mean that you have voided the terms of your driver's license.

I am out now as this has gotten way off track of the original intent of this thread.

I didn't say he his spouting mistruths, I am simply debating the interpretation of the document. This is what happens in a debate, you poke holes in the interlocutors premises.

And again, it is time to get of this pseudo legal junk. Comparing speeding to modifying your computer is invalid; one is against the law and the other is not.

I also think you need to examine the definition of "void." I think you are using some other definition of the term which is causing confusion. In your example above with the license, "breached the terms" would be more accurate. And we know a breach need not lead to a consequence, be it a ticket or suspension.

In your world it seems, the mere act of speeding renders my license void.

To end this on my end I will state my argument; The mere act of replacing the optical drive in your MacBook Pro does not void the warranty. If you or the part itself causes damage and Apple can make that case with evidence, you are liable to pay for any damages caused by you or the part. If the warranty is to be voided it will be at the determination of Apple at that time and the terms surrounding such an action are not clearly laid out in their warranty information.

Thus, if you replace the optical drive with something, before taking it in for repair remove those items. Your computer will likely be serviced; service is possible because there mere act does not void the warranty.

What some of the people here may want to say is the following; replacing the optical drive with something is risky and could lead to a denial of warranty claims.