Damnit judge. We all know the expectations if we go in and destroy stuff -- you broke it, you bought it. Judge should have hit him with full MSRP and demanded Apple hand over the destroyed product to him once the bill is payed.
He destroyed something owned by Apple that was not for sale. So it seems pretty logic that he must pay the cost for Apple to replace the items and not the selling price of the equipment. And we all know the margins that Apple makes on its equipment.
But the lost to Apple should include the lost profit from not being able to sell the replacement devices. It's not as though the only cost to Apple is their actual cost of the new replacement devices. The devices destroyed were probably less the a year old and would sell at a 10 to 15% discount off MSRP, as refurbished or Demo. That is the cost that should have been charged to the person that destroyed them. (Along with other damages and labor.) It's less than full MSRP but more than Apple's actual cost of the replacement devices.
This is what our society is coming to, we have all these people walking around thinking they are the most important person around and when they do not get what the think is owed them that do this kind of things. The next thing you will see is this guy will have some sort of Blog or youtube channel ripping on apple and it products how much he know about customer service and product design.
Damnit judge. We all know the expectations if we go in and destroy stuff -- you broke it, you bought it. Judge should have hit him with full MSRP and demanded Apple hand over the destroyed product to him once the bill is payed.
He destroyed something owned by Apple that was not for sale. So it seems pretty logic that he must pay the cost for Apple to replace the items and not the selling price of the equipment. And we all know the margins that Apple makes on its equipment.
But the lost to Apple should include the lost profit from not being able to sell the replacement devices. It's not as though the only cost to Apple is their actual cost of the new replacement devices. The devices destroyed were probably less the a year old and would sell at a 10 to 15% discount off MSRP, as refurbished or Demo. That is the cost that should have been charged to the person that destroyed them. (Along with other damages and labor.) It's less than full MSRP but more than Apple's actual cost of the replacement devices.
Apple can buy new devices with the money they receive and sell those. When you destroy something, you always only have to reimburse the replacement value. In the case of a Rembrandt, that will be a few million USD (even if the owner got it from an old grandma for $ 100); if you detsroy my iPhone you need to reimburse me what it costs me to get a new one; if you destroy Apple's iPhones, you pay them their production costs.
Now, there is an exemption in retail apparently, where "if you break it, you buy it"; I am not sure why that is still relevant for large chain stores (it made sense for small owner shops because they had limited inventory); but the judge ruled that because the iPhones were for display only, this exemption did not apply. the judge considered the iPhones as part of the furniture/display, for which replacement value applies. Makes perfect sense.
Comments
But the lost to Apple should include the lost profit from not being able to sell the replacement devices. It's not as though the only cost to Apple is their actual cost of the new replacement devices. The devices destroyed were probably less the a year old and would sell at a 10 to 15% discount off MSRP, as refurbished or Demo. That is the cost that should have been charged to the person that destroyed them. (Along with other damages and labor.) It's less than full MSRP but more than Apple's actual cost of the replacement devices.
Now, there is an exemption in retail apparently, where "if you break it, you buy it"; I am not sure why that is still relevant for large chain stores (it made sense for small owner shops because they had limited inventory); but the judge ruled that because the iPhones were for display only, this exemption did not apply. the judge considered the iPhones as part of the furniture/display, for which replacement value applies. Makes perfect sense.
This guy will probably go off again, possibly hurting others, if he doesn't learn to control himself.