Smoking may void Applecare warranty
Apple owners claim that their Applecare warranties have been refused due to "health risks of second hand smoke."
The Consumerist has reported that two separate readers have sent in accounts of being refused computer repair service due to the presence of damage related to smoking. The readers were reportedly told that computers with evidence of smoke damage could not be worked on because Apple considers them to be health hazards, and to have workers repair the computer would be an OSHA violation.
Employees at one Apple store reportedly told a customer that her computer was "beyond economical repair due to tar from cigarette smoke."
Both customers sent letters directly to Steve Jobs' office and both were declined service even though they had active Applecare warranties. One reader received a response advising that "nicotine is on OSHA's list of hazardous substances and Apple would not require an employee to repair anything deemed hazardous to their health."
Apple has not officially responded to any inquiries about this policy and it is unclear if it is a blanket policy or if there is a workable threshold for the amount of smoke damage present.
The Consumerist has reported that two separate readers have sent in accounts of being refused computer repair service due to the presence of damage related to smoking. The readers were reportedly told that computers with evidence of smoke damage could not be worked on because Apple considers them to be health hazards, and to have workers repair the computer would be an OSHA violation.
Employees at one Apple store reportedly told a customer that her computer was "beyond economical repair due to tar from cigarette smoke."
Both customers sent letters directly to Steve Jobs' office and both were declined service even though they had active Applecare warranties. One reader received a response advising that "nicotine is on OSHA's list of hazardous substances and Apple would not require an employee to repair anything deemed hazardous to their health."
Apple has not officially responded to any inquiries about this policy and it is unclear if it is a blanket policy or if there is a workable threshold for the amount of smoke damage present.
Comments
Ever since the inception of the warranty, companies have been finding ways any way they can to not honor them.
This is a nice and simple way of voiding your warranty even if there is no proof of anything. Next up...if you ever sneeze around your computer the warranty is null! Afterall...it might be a flu hazard...
just another big corporation trying to screw its customers out of costly warranties...
Ever since the inception of the warranty, companies have been finding ways any way they can to not honor them.
This is a nice and simple way of voiding your warranty even if there is no proof of anything. Next up...if you ever sneeze around your computer the warranty is null! Afterall...it might be a flu hazard...
I totally understand where Apple is coming from. I work on PC's at work and I have had to work on users notebooks that looked, and smelled like they were using it as an ash tray. Its disgusting! I smell and feel dirty after working on it.
At the least, I hope Apple refunded their money.
just another big corporation trying to screw its customers out of costly warranties...
Ever since the inception of the warranty, companies have been finding ways any way they can to not honor them.
This is a nice and simple way of voiding your warranty even if there is no proof of anything. Next up...if you ever sneeze around your computer the warranty is null! Afterall...it might be a flu hazard...
Not likely. They didn't ask whether the customer smoked. The damage from the tar was severe enough to warrant refusal. That means visible evidence was discovered.
If nicotine is on the list of health hazards, then Apple has a case. A proper reply to Apple's position is to discover whether the amount of nicotine found on the PC is sufficient enough to cause harm.
I understand that second hand smoke is a health hazard, but Apple's position on finding evidence of nicotine may be jumping the gun as trace amounts may not pose a risk of injury. Radiation is a health hazard, but all our devices output some amount of the stuff. Nicotine cannot be an "all or none" case.
This is not a case to blatantly refuse service, this is a case whether tar found from second hand smoke is sufficient to hurt a technician. I am sure there exist cases where the customer smokes but their PC was repaired. It seems likely that the PCs refused had large amounts of tar.
Another installment of Strange But True.
If cigarette smoke residue has rendered the unit unsafe as per regulations, then that's that.
If you have asthma or in any way allergic to smoking, even buying and reading a used book from a smoking home, can cause you serious health problem. I know a car dealership that charges extra to work on any smoker vehicle.
Quit smoking. The only thing that will happen to you is that you will live longer with less health-related problems. And someone else do not have to suffer because you chose to suffocate your life.
It’s another to say that no safety gear exists which allows workers to repair the machine safely. I feel certain that a properly-equipped repair tech could work on tobacco-slimed hardware for many years without taking in any of the toxins.
I suppose Apple could say that supplying such gear (and the extra time involved) makes the repair too expensive to cover. That would be weird, though. Does Apple tell you when you buy the AppleCare plan that heavy smoking without ventilation may render your hardware impractical to repair? If not, then Apple shouldn’t be deciding AFTER the fact that it’s a problem. Smoking, sad to say, is still common, so it’s not an issue Apple should have overlooked. Apple should pay whatever it takes to repair the systems safely—or simply replace them—unless they’re going to give more fair warning about this issue.
It?s one thing to refuse service because excessive tar actually caused the failure (I?ve seen some disgusting stained walls in smokers? homes). Maybe that can happen, hard as it is to believe.
It?s another to say that no safety gear exists which allows workers to repair the machine safely. I feel certain that a properly-equipped repair tech could work on tobacco-slimed hardware for many years without taking in any of the toxins.
I suppose Apple could say that supplying such gear (and the extra time involved) makes the repair too expensive to cover. That would be weird, though. Does Apple tell you when you buy the AppleCare plan that heavy smoking without ventilation may render your hardware impractical to repair? If not, then Apple shouldn?t be deciding AFTER the fact that it?s a problem. Smoking, sad to say, is still common, so it?s not an issue Apple should have overlooked. Apple should pay whatever it takes to repair the systems safely?or simply replace them?unless they?re going to give more fair warning about this issue.
If the latter point exists then I don?t see how the first point couldn?t exist. In other words, if you machine is so fooled up and visually coated with nicotine tar inside and out within the 1yr or 3 yr plans then the warranty shouldn?t cover this.
If I use my notebook at the pool and it gets wet or if I spill Coke on it then I don?t expect the warranty to cover this sort of damage. This is not a problem with the machine, but how the machine has been treated.
It?s one thing to refuse service because excessive tar actually caused the failure (I?ve seen some disgusting stained walls in smokers? homes). Maybe that can happen, hard as it is to believe.
It?s another to say that no safety gear exists which allows workers to repair the machine safely. I feel certain that a properly-equipped repair tech could work on tobacco-slimed hardware for many years without taking in any of the toxins.
I suppose Apple could say that supplying such gear (and the extra time involved) makes the repair too expensive to cover. That would be weird, though. Does Apple tell you when you buy the AppleCare plan that heavy smoking without ventilation may render your hardware impractical to repair? If not, then Apple shouldn?t be deciding AFTER the fact that it?s a problem. Smoking, sad to say, is still common, so it?s not an issue Apple should have overlooked. Apple should pay whatever it takes to repair the systems safely?or simply replace them?unless they?re going to give more fair warning about this issue.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the result of a lawsuit (or settlement) that Apple has already been involved in. Or another company in the industry. It seems unlikely Apple would come up with this on their own without some sort of prior stimulus. Also, I have had a ridiculous number of Apple repairs done on Apple's dime. Apple is VERY good about warranty repairs and very frequently makes repairs even if Applecare has expired, the unit appears to have been damaged through neglect, or the piece isn't covered under Applecare because it is considered a wear and tear item. Apple rarely even bats an eye at these repair requests. Unlike many other companies, don't think this is an example of Apple coming up with a reason just so they don't have to cover something that would otherwise be covered. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised, based on my personal experiences with them, if this were the case.
Just my $0.02.
Just quit smoking, it's that simple. Smoking does not do anything for the smoker, so why should anyone who does not smoke work for hours on a product that is potentially hazardous to his or her health.
I don't smoke, but I find your attitude quite unbelievable. Last I checked, it is a perfectly legal activity. If smoking did "nothing" for the smoker -- e.g., give them pleasure -- why would they smoke in the first place? And 'hazardous to health?' People lie around in the sun, eat too much red meat, put too much salt in their food, drive above the speed limit, drive after they've had a drink or two, have unprotected/unsafe sex, don't wash hands enough, etc etc. Would you ban all such activity?
I know a car dealership that charges extra to work on any smoker vehicle.
That's a silly analogy. If so, Apple should state upfront that either that a person in that situation would not qualify for Applecare, or they should charge extra. They do neither.
I can see this going to court.
just another big corporation trying to screw its customers out of costly warranties.
Really? You don't see any culpability here on the part of the owner? REALLY?!?
just another big corporation trying to screw its customers out of costly warranties ...
This is an idiotic theory at best.
Apple provides a warranty, and they are going to actively deny it on a few seriously smoke damaged computers, just so they can "screw" people over? Paranoid nonsense.
I guess you think health care is a plot to kill old people too.
Last I checked, (smoking) is a perfectly legal activity.
I can see this going to court.
Pouring Pepsi into your computer is a perfectly legal activity. But it's just as legal for Apple to say "Nope, we're not fixing that under warranty." Same thing for a coating of tar.
Apple isn't saying owners can't smoke. If they were, you'd be correct. But since they're not, your argument falls flat. If this goes to court, the owner will lose.
If the cigarette smoke residue was blatently evident, I'm not sure I understand why Apple chose to take the health hazard stance. The gunk that builds up from cigarette smoke is more than capable of jamming up fans and other mechanical devices in a PC. That alone would be enough to deny warranty - similar reasoning as to why they will deny warranty if they see that moisture sensors have been activated, regardless if the issue is really water related or not.
Best comment in the thread
I agree, of course.
1) If Apple is denying coverage due to the user causing the problem, that's fine.
2) If Apple is denying coverage as it's unhealthy for their workers - then give their workers safety gear or provide a refurb machine.