mr. h

I'm not defending Apple per se. This is my opinion having worked service for a long time, just the same as disapproving of Apple killing the AirPort was as well from a consumer perspective was mine as well.

It just takes a certain amount of jerks spewing "YOU BROKE IT" nonsense, or somebody else trying to slip by "this is a warranty failure!" when it's clearly water damage or similar to change your mind. There are repairs that it isn't worth you doing, and letting somebody else handle, at every level of business. Difficult service customers aren't uncommon -- nobody likes to have broken gear.
It's very simple on a single-store scale. It is notably less so on a 503-store and online service options one.

Oh come on now. Apple have astronomical margins, and literally make more money than they know what to do with. I don't begrudge them their margins or their cash horde, as long as they deliver products and customer service that is second to none. But they are failing here on the latter. They could do much, much better. They are taking the "super easy" route, when there's an only slightly more difficult path for them which would make their customers' lives much easier.

And, you suggest that there's always the option of third-party repair, when you know full well that Apple go out of their way to make it hard for third-party repair shops to offer the best service they could. See: right-to-repair.

I'm sure that Apple told the customer that the speaker and the battery were failed. That's the modus operandi, and the procedure for it. He just chose to not do the repair, and go to a third party -- which is his right.

Apple didn't give him a choice, they said that he *must* pay them to fix the speaker and microphone, in order for them to also replace the battery for £29. I say that this is exceptionally poor customer service and it's disappointing that you defend such a move.

It's very simple, Apple gets the customer to sign an acknowledgement that they have been informed that there's a problem with the speaker/mic, and that if the customer gets Apple to replace the battery, Apple can't be held responsible for what happens to the speaker/mic. Apple being difficult with all customers, to protect themselves from the odd unreasonable/balshy customer, is not acceptable IMHO.

I think your attempt here to defend Apple on this one is incredibly weak. There's also a few commenters who seem to misunderstand the complaints.

No-one is saying that when they give their phone to Apple for a £29 battery replacement, Apple should also fix any and all other problems with the phone, within that £29 price. What they are saying, is that it is unreasonable of Apple to reject a £29 battery replacement, unless you do this other repair for £200.

OK, you provide a fairly reasonable explanation for why Apple might not want to do the repair if the display assembly has a small chip: the display might crack during the replacement process. But the other one - what possible affect could a faulty speaker and/or mic have on the battery replacement?

Apple is being totally unreasonable here. They should highlight the risks to the customer, and then let them decide. In the two specific cases highlighted it would be:

For the chipped phone: Apple informs the customer that attempting to replace the battery may cause further damage to the screen, including a full crack across its face - and if that happens, it'll cost £200 to remedy. Now, the customer can decide - request they change the battery, and if they don't break the screen, it'll cost £29, but if they do break the screen and have to replace that too, it'll cost £229.

For the faulty speaker: Apple informs the customer that diagnostics have identified a fault in the speaker/microphone. If Apple replaces the battery, the speaker/microphone may not work afterwards. Replacing just the battery, with the risk of speaker damage is £29. Replacing the battery and the speaker is £150 (or whatever, not sure I saw a price quoted for that).

feudalist said:

Ok, you accepted my reasoning. Now, I must tell you something. It's main point is fabricated - iphone 6s was 500 days old in january 2017. You bought it to the max and speculated about apple's intentions. Oh dear.

Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I hope that my posts are useful for anyone else reading who has an open mind and wants to learn. Just because your argument was false (age of iPhone 6s when 10.2.1 came out) and I failed to check that, doesn't make anything I said untrue. It just makes your posts look even more idiotic.

macplusplus said:

mr. h said:

macplusplus said:

Your battery may be good and there may be myriad of reasons that slow down your device: defective logic board, water, drop, defective battery are to name a few. Slowness is always a support issue. If you have a slowness problem Apple support is there. As when you're sick you don't heal yourself reading Wikipedia but you go to a physician right? Did Apple refuse to cure the slowness of your device? No because you didn't request that.

Agreed with all of this.

macplusplus said:

tried to force Apple to comply with your "solution".

You don't think it's totally unreasonable of Apple to refuse to replace the battery? It's not that they were refusing to replace it for free, they were refusing to replace it, even for the $79 fee (which clearly has a VERY healthy profit margin)! Personally, I think that is unacceptable and indefensible.

Then you would sue Apple again claiming "they unnecessarily replaced my good battery and they charged $79 for that."

This does not logically follow. If a customer wants to pay Apple to put a brand new battery into said customer's phone, I really don't see why the state of the battery currently in the phone is at all relevant. It is reasonable for the customer to expect that Apple will put in a new battery for the agreed fee, regardless of the reason that the customer wants a new battery.