I've always thought it odd that with the credentials Apple has, it can't guarantee that their computers will last any longer than 1 year. They can't have much faith in their own machines if that's all they give you as standard.
I've always thought it odd that with the credentials Apple has, it can't guarantee that their computers will last any longer than 1 year. They can't have much faith in their own machines if that's all they give you as standard.
Of course they could -- but why should they when people are so willing to pay extra?
Still, I wonder how many consumer electronics manufacturers offer warranties longer than one year? Many are only 90 days.
Of course they could -- but why should they when people are so willing to pay extra?
Still, I wonder how many consumer electronics manufacturers offer warranties longer than one year? Many are only 90 days.
It's been a long time since I've seen a warranty less than a year - I'm not even sure it's legal to have a warranty less than a year here, unless you're buying used or reconditioned goods. The vast majority of computer components come with 3, 5 or lifetime warranties - my Intel CPU is 3 years, my motherboard 3 years, my RAM lifetime, my 2 hard drives both 5 years, my keyboard and mouse both 5 years and my Dell monitor 3 years. It's really galling that a £1500 Apple computer is only guaranteed to last 1 year. That's a staggering £4.10 per day for a years usage. I feel a 3 or 5 year warranty would be appropriate for Apple's premium class.
Laws in some countries mandate longer warranties. You will still find quite a few 90 day warranties, including the original Xbox warranty, which Microsoft had to extend because of all the manufacturing defects in the product. Google "90 day warranty" and you'll get plenty of results.
Your per-day cost is extremely theoretical. It assumes a complete product failure requiring replacement after one year. This is hardly a common occurrence.
Laws in some countries mandate longer warranties. You will still find quite a few 90 day warranties, including the original Xbox warranty, which Microsoft had to extend because of all the manufacturing defects in the product. Google "90 day warranty" and you'll get plenty of results.
Your per-day cost is extremely theoretical. It assumes a complete product failure requiring replacement after one year. This is hardly a common occurrence.
It must just be whatever country you are from that has lousy warranties! The cost per day might be far fetched, but it is certainly a possibility. The guarantee on the product is not in line with the price and status of the product.
By that reasoning, you must buy extended warranties for all of your cars, too. After all, the dealer charges $200 for an oil change.
Gee whiz, I get my oil changed for $24.95. They even throw in air for the tires and windshield wiper fluid! I think even BMW offers free maintenance on its cars now. What kind of car do you drive that your dealer charges $200 to swap out motor oil?
Edit: did some google searching. Turns out there is a thread on this in Maseratilife website!
It must just be whatever country you are from that has lousy warranties! The cost per day might be far fetched, but it is certainly a possibility. The guarantee on the product is not in line with the price and status of the product.
I don't feel a need to defend Apple's warranty period -- it's not a part of anything I've argued. My point was, why should Apple extend their warranties when people so willingly pay extra for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kishan
Gee whiz, I get my oil changed for $24.95. They even throw in air for the tires and windshield wiper fluid! I think even BMW offers free maintenance on its cars now. What kind of car do you drive that your dealer charges $200 to swap out motor oil?
You certainly can but if you bring it to the dealer, and the car is out of warranty, you pay the full freight, and most of them will charge in that neighborhood for an oil change (perhaps somewhat less for conventional oil). No car manufacturer offers free service for life, AFAIK. Maybe most people don't keep their cars long enough to find this out.
But the point is, you don't have to pay high dealer service charges. Quoting these costs as a justification for buying AppleCare is a false economy.
One recent example: My brother-in-law had a board failure in his Mac mini. Apple quoted him $600 for the repair. He called around and got the same work done in an indie shop for around $200, I think it was. The holder of the AppleCare policy would never price the repair and assume the policy "saved" them $600.
I don't feel a need to defend Apple's warranty period -- it's not a part of anything I've argued. My point was, why should Apple extend their warranties when people so willingly pay extra for it?
It's the people who are willingly paying extra for it that are causing the problem. By paying extra for the AppleCare, these people are tacitly accepting that a one year standard warranty is OK. Which in turns means that those of us who think that a one year warranty isn't OK can't effect any chance in policy. Customers should have the power to force manufactures to offer better deals - in this instance it's completely the opposite way around with people playing entirely into Apple's hand and Apple calling the shots.
It's the people who are willingly paying extra for it that are causing the problem. By paying extra for the AppleCare, these people are tacitly accepting that a one year standard warranty is OK. Which in turns means that those of us who think that a one year warranty isn't OK can't effect any chance in policy. Customers should have the power to force manufactures to offer better deals - in this instance it's completely the opposite way around with people playing entirely into Apple's hand and Apple calling the shots.
That seems like an odd artificial distinction between "people who are willingly paying extra for (Apple Care)" and "customers."
If enough people are paying for Apple Care for it to make business sense for Apple to offer a stock 1 year warranty (that is to say, without negatively impacting sales), then in fact the customers are calling the shots.
Perhaps your thought is that if Apple didn't offer Apple Care then more buyers would be forced to confront the implications of a one year warranty, but the fact is they do offer Apple Care, it seems to be pretty popular, and as far as we know Apple isn't losing a lot of sales by structuring their warranty this way.
That seems like an odd artificial distinction between "people who are willingly paying extra for (Apple Care)" and "customers."
If enough people are paying for Apple Care for it to make business sense for Apple to offer a stock 1 year warranty (that is to say, without negatively impacting sales), then in fact the customers are calling the shots.
Perhaps your thought is that if Apple didn't offer Apple Care then more buyers would be forced to confront the implications of a one year warranty, but the fact is they do offer Apple Care, it seems to be pretty popular, and as far as we know Apple isn't losing a lot of sales by structuring their warranty this way.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year. To protect themselves, they feel obliged to pay the extra to cover the product for 3 years. Apple are knowingly selling a high end product with an underspecced warranty because they know people are willing to cough up even more to cover the product for 3 years, and people doing so is just giving a big thumbs up to Apple that this is OK. This isn't OK, and Apple should have the balls to stand by their products and offer a 3 year warranty as standard. If their computers are as good as they say they are, what's the problem with offering that? It really smacks of outright profiteering and so many people walk so willingly into it without thinking that what they are paying for they should have as standard on such an expensive and prestigous bit of kit.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year. To protect themselves, they feel obliged to pay the extra to cover the product for 3 years. Apple are knowingly selling a high end product with an underspecced warranty because they know people are willing to cough up even more to cover the product for 3 years, and people doing so is just giving a big thumbs up to Apple that this is OK. This isn't OK, and Apple should have the balls to stand by their products and offer a 3 year warranty as standard. If their computers are as good as they say they are, what's the problem with offering that? It really smacks of outright profiteering and so many people walk so willingly into it without thinking that what they are paying for they should have as standard on such an expensive and prestigous bit of kit.
I don't understand the distinction between "Apple's customers vote with their dollars to declare Apple Care OK" and "is not OK."
"Profiteering" is a term best reserved for necessities. Apple can't take profits that aren't given voluntarily, and anyone is free to either decline the purchase of Apple Care or simply not buy Apple products in favor of a manufacturer that offers a longer stock warranty. No one will suffer unduly for making this choice. Apple is not gouging people for food or housing or heating fuel or medical services. The very fact that Apple is able to do what they're doing and stay in business suggests that it's perfectly OK, in a business sense.
And really, when we're talking about what manufacturers charge for things, that's the only sense that's relevant. Nobody sells stuff for less than they could get because they're great guys, or love you. If other manufacturers offer longer warranties, it's because they feel they must to be competitive, not because they're especially confident of their build quality or have warm feelings for their customers or regard longer warranties as an inherently decent way to do business.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year.
You seem to believe that Apple's warranty period is some sort of aberration for "expensive" products. it isn't. A TV can easily cost more than a Mac, but you won't find it coming with a longer warranty coverage period. Here's a summary of TV warranties:
What people "feel" is necessary isn't my concern. I don't think AppleCare is necessary, and neither are any other extended warranties. They are all very poor values, which people buy because they make them feel more secure.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year. To protect themselves, they feel obliged to pay the extra to cover the product for 3 years. Apple are knowingly selling a high end product with an underspecced warranty because they know people are willing to cough up even more to cover the product for 3 years, and people doing so is just giving a big thumbs up to Apple that this is OK. This isn't OK, and Apple should have the balls to stand by their products and offer a 3 year warranty as standard. If their computers are as good as they say they are, what's the problem with offering that? It really smacks of outright profiteering and so many people walk so willingly into it without thinking that what they are paying for they should have as standard on such an expensive and prestigous bit of kit.
I don't understand the distinction between "Apple's customers vote with their dollars to declare Apple Care OK" and "is not OK."
"Profiteering" is a term best reserved for necessities-- Apple is not gouging people for food or housing or heating fuel or medical services. Anyone is free to either decline the purchase of Apple Care or simply not buy Apple products in favor of a manufacturer that offers a longer stock warranty. No one will suffer unduly for making this choice. The very fact that Apple is able to do what they're doing suggests that it's perfectly OK, in a business sense.
And really, when we're talking about what manufacturers charge for things, that's the only sense that's relevant. Nobody sells stuff for less than they could get because they're great guys, or love you. If other manufacturers offer longer warranties, it's because they feel they must to be competitive, not because they're especially confident of their build quality or have warm feelings for their customers.
Comments
I've always thought it odd that with the credentials Apple has, it can't guarantee that their computers will last any longer than 1 year. They can't have much faith in their own machines if that's all they give you as standard.
Of course they could -- but why should they when people are so willing to pay extra?
Still, I wonder how many consumer electronics manufacturers offer warranties longer than one year? Many are only 90 days.
Of course they could -- but why should they when people are so willing to pay extra?
Still, I wonder how many consumer electronics manufacturers offer warranties longer than one year? Many are only 90 days.
It's been a long time since I've seen a warranty less than a year - I'm not even sure it's legal to have a warranty less than a year here, unless you're buying used or reconditioned goods. The vast majority of computer components come with 3, 5 or lifetime warranties - my Intel CPU is 3 years, my motherboard 3 years, my RAM lifetime, my 2 hard drives both 5 years, my keyboard and mouse both 5 years and my Dell monitor 3 years. It's really galling that a £1500 Apple computer is only guaranteed to last 1 year. That's a staggering £4.10 per day for a years usage. I feel a 3 or 5 year warranty would be appropriate for Apple's premium class.
Your per-day cost is extremely theoretical. It assumes a complete product failure requiring replacement after one year. This is hardly a common occurrence.
Laws in some countries mandate longer warranties. You will still find quite a few 90 day warranties, including the original Xbox warranty, which Microsoft had to extend because of all the manufacturing defects in the product. Google "90 day warranty" and you'll get plenty of results.
Your per-day cost is extremely theoretical. It assumes a complete product failure requiring replacement after one year. This is hardly a common occurrence.
It must just be whatever country you are from that has lousy warranties! The cost per day might be far fetched, but it is certainly a possibility. The guarantee on the product is not in line with the price and status of the product.
By that reasoning, you must buy extended warranties for all of your cars, too. After all, the dealer charges $200 for an oil change.
Gee whiz, I get my oil changed for $24.95. They even throw in air for the tires and windshield wiper fluid! I think even BMW offers free maintenance on its cars now. What kind of car do you drive that your dealer charges $200 to swap out motor oil?
Edit: did some google searching. Turns out there is a thread on this in Maseratilife website!
It must just be whatever country you are from that has lousy warranties! The cost per day might be far fetched, but it is certainly a possibility. The guarantee on the product is not in line with the price and status of the product.
I don't feel a need to defend Apple's warranty period -- it's not a part of anything I've argued. My point was, why should Apple extend their warranties when people so willingly pay extra for it?
Gee whiz, I get my oil changed for $24.95. They even throw in air for the tires and windshield wiper fluid! I think even BMW offers free maintenance on its cars now. What kind of car do you drive that your dealer charges $200 to swap out motor oil?
You certainly can but if you bring it to the dealer, and the car is out of warranty, you pay the full freight, and most of them will charge in that neighborhood for an oil change (perhaps somewhat less for conventional oil). No car manufacturer offers free service for life, AFAIK. Maybe most people don't keep their cars long enough to find this out.
But the point is, you don't have to pay high dealer service charges. Quoting these costs as a justification for buying AppleCare is a false economy.
One recent example: My brother-in-law had a board failure in his Mac mini. Apple quoted him $600 for the repair. He called around and got the same work done in an indie shop for around $200, I think it was. The holder of the AppleCare policy would never price the repair and assume the policy "saved" them $600.
I don't feel a need to defend Apple's warranty period -- it's not a part of anything I've argued. My point was, why should Apple extend their warranties when people so willingly pay extra for it?
It's the people who are willingly paying extra for it that are causing the problem. By paying extra for the AppleCare, these people are tacitly accepting that a one year standard warranty is OK. Which in turns means that those of us who think that a one year warranty isn't OK can't effect any chance in policy. Customers should have the power to force manufactures to offer better deals - in this instance it's completely the opposite way around with people playing entirely into Apple's hand and Apple calling the shots.
It's the people who are willingly paying extra for it that are causing the problem. By paying extra for the AppleCare, these people are tacitly accepting that a one year standard warranty is OK. Which in turns means that those of us who think that a one year warranty isn't OK can't effect any chance in policy. Customers should have the power to force manufactures to offer better deals - in this instance it's completely the opposite way around with people playing entirely into Apple's hand and Apple calling the shots.
That seems like an odd artificial distinction between "people who are willingly paying extra for (Apple Care)" and "customers."
If enough people are paying for Apple Care for it to make business sense for Apple to offer a stock 1 year warranty (that is to say, without negatively impacting sales), then in fact the customers are calling the shots.
Perhaps your thought is that if Apple didn't offer Apple Care then more buyers would be forced to confront the implications of a one year warranty, but the fact is they do offer Apple Care, it seems to be pretty popular, and as far as we know Apple isn't losing a lot of sales by structuring their warranty this way.
That seems like an odd artificial distinction between "people who are willingly paying extra for (Apple Care)" and "customers."
If enough people are paying for Apple Care for it to make business sense for Apple to offer a stock 1 year warranty (that is to say, without negatively impacting sales), then in fact the customers are calling the shots.
Perhaps your thought is that if Apple didn't offer Apple Care then more buyers would be forced to confront the implications of a one year warranty, but the fact is they do offer Apple Care, it seems to be pretty popular, and as far as we know Apple isn't losing a lot of sales by structuring their warranty this way.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year. To protect themselves, they feel obliged to pay the extra to cover the product for 3 years. Apple are knowingly selling a high end product with an underspecced warranty because they know people are willing to cough up even more to cover the product for 3 years, and people doing so is just giving a big thumbs up to Apple that this is OK. This isn't OK, and Apple should have the balls to stand by their products and offer a 3 year warranty as standard. If their computers are as good as they say they are, what's the problem with offering that? It really smacks of outright profiteering and so many people walk so willingly into it without thinking that what they are paying for they should have as standard on such an expensive and prestigous bit of kit.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year. To protect themselves, they feel obliged to pay the extra to cover the product for 3 years. Apple are knowingly selling a high end product with an underspecced warranty because they know people are willing to cough up even more to cover the product for 3 years, and people doing so is just giving a big thumbs up to Apple that this is OK. This isn't OK, and Apple should have the balls to stand by their products and offer a 3 year warranty as standard. If their computers are as good as they say they are, what's the problem with offering that? It really smacks of outright profiteering and so many people walk so willingly into it without thinking that what they are paying for they should have as standard on such an expensive and prestigous bit of kit.
I don't understand the distinction between "Apple's customers vote with their dollars to declare Apple Care OK" and "is not OK."
"Profiteering" is a term best reserved for necessities. Apple can't take profits that aren't given voluntarily, and anyone is free to either decline the purchase of Apple Care or simply not buy Apple products in favor of a manufacturer that offers a longer stock warranty. No one will suffer unduly for making this choice. Apple is not gouging people for food or housing or heating fuel or medical services. The very fact that Apple is able to do what they're doing and stay in business suggests that it's perfectly OK, in a business sense.
And really, when we're talking about what manufacturers charge for things, that's the only sense that's relevant. Nobody sells stuff for less than they could get because they're great guys, or love you. If other manufacturers offer longer warranties, it's because they feel they must to be competitive, not because they're especially confident of their build quality or have warm feelings for their customers or regard longer warranties as an inherently decent way to do business.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year.
You seem to believe that Apple's warranty period is some sort of aberration for "expensive" products. it isn't. A TV can easily cost more than a Mac, but you won't find it coming with a longer warranty coverage period. Here's a summary of TV warranties:
http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/tv-warranty.shtml
What people "feel" is necessary isn't my concern. I don't think AppleCare is necessary, and neither are any other extended warranties. They are all very poor values, which people buy because they make them feel more secure.
I see it rather the other way around - customers are buying a very expensive product that as it stands is only guaranteed to work for a year. To protect themselves, they feel obliged to pay the extra to cover the product for 3 years. Apple are knowingly selling a high end product with an underspecced warranty because they know people are willing to cough up even more to cover the product for 3 years, and people doing so is just giving a big thumbs up to Apple that this is OK. This isn't OK, and Apple should have the balls to stand by their products and offer a 3 year warranty as standard. If their computers are as good as they say they are, what's the problem with offering that? It really smacks of outright profiteering and so many people walk so willingly into it without thinking that what they are paying for they should have as standard on such an expensive and prestigous bit of kit.
I don't understand the distinction between "Apple's customers vote with their dollars to declare Apple Care OK" and "is not OK."
"Profiteering" is a term best reserved for necessities-- Apple is not gouging people for food or housing or heating fuel or medical services. Anyone is free to either decline the purchase of Apple Care or simply not buy Apple products in favor of a manufacturer that offers a longer stock warranty. No one will suffer unduly for making this choice. The very fact that Apple is able to do what they're doing suggests that it's perfectly OK, in a business sense.
And really, when we're talking about what manufacturers charge for things, that's the only sense that's relevant. Nobody sells stuff for less than they could get because they're great guys, or love you. If other manufacturers offer longer warranties, it's because they feel they must to be competitive, not because they're especially confident of their build quality or have warm feelings for their customers.