[Macpartners] Apple Powerbook Display Scam

[Kerem B Limon]

I've made several comments in-line below. Matthew--I understand your 
argument and agree with you from a business-ethical point-of-view; however, 
some of John's comments are also accurate in depicting what the situation 
really is due to and how Apple is not so different from other vendors in 
the industry (except the parts I note below).

At 04/02/17 10:33  Tuesday, John C. Welch wrote:
>On 2/17/04 9:10 AM, "Matthew Walburn" <matt at math.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> The article with Apple's policy is here:
> >>
> >> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=22194
> >
> > I understand the policy.
> >
> > My primary issue is that since this IS their policy, that they owe it
> > to their customers to make this policy known at the time of purchase.
> > It's unethical and misleading to sell a $3000 computer in good faith to
> > someone and then have this little "policy" hidden away to cover them
> > when things go wrong. It's blatant deception of consumers... executed
> > because apparently Apple won't stand behind the quality of their
> > displays.
>
>Caveat Emptor. Every LCD manufacturer has done this for well over ten years.
>It's not a case of quality, or standing behind things. It's a case of
>manufacturing limitations. Apple could very easily reject all screens with
>even the slightest imperfections.
>
>But that costs more. That cost is not absorbed by Apple, nor is it absorbed
>by the factory making the LCD screens. It's absorbed by the consumer.
>
>This is not limited to the computer industry. Anything you buy is going to
>have "an acceptable range of defects". Cars have them, etc. If the defect
>isn't critical, then you're going to kind of be stuck with it. As well,
>since Apple does have the policy on their web site, (the modern day
>equivalent of "fine print"), it is feasible for you to know this policy
>ahead of time. (ignorance of such a policy does not make it null and void)

I have had the same problem with my first Dell notebook a while ago, which 
was, incidentally, mail-ordered and could not thus be inspected 
pre-purchase; so, let's just say that I can sympathize with Matthew's 
problem and it's not uncommon. Luckily, the impact of just a single 
dead/stuck pixel is more psychological and cosmetic than functional for 
most of us. At worst, it's mildly annoying; at best, it's a small defect 
that one can grow to live with unless your professional requirements 
absolutely demand a "perfect" LCD panel. Mine did not, and I put up with it 
fine for years.

This is not to say that Matthew's objection is undeserved. That said, 
however, I would not go as far as calling this a "blatant deception" per 
se. From a legal standpoint, and as John notes re- the [on-line] fine print 
later on, they [Apple] are in fact, in the clear. And John is correct in 
observing this is not unique to Apple or the computing industry.

What I found surprising though, at least in comparison with LCD defect 
policies I can recall of other vendors, is the lack of specificity in 
Apple's--most vendors will include a quantitative clause, something to the 
tune of "max. of n dead pixels within a r pixel/in radius", rather than a 
very subjective "a high number of pixel anomalies" as stated in the Apple 
KB article. This inadvertant(?) policy relaxation, or potential loophole, 
coupled with a reasonable, calm approach, may indeed be a good point or one 
basis of an argument Matthew can make.

>Having said that, you MAY have a chance to get this fixed, depending on how
>you approach this. Calm, rational, and non-hostile will get you a LOT
>farther than anger. When you get hostile, the willingness of people to bend
>rules or put themselves out shrinks rapidly. I've had good luck with such
>things because I set my anger aside.

I could not agree more. Having served many years on the other side of the 
bench, I can guarantee that frustration expressed through calm, reasoned 
arguments will always trump hostile and accusatory behavior. To resolve the 
matter, I suggest you plan your stance and justification ahead of time and 
submit it to the appropriate customer relations party(ies) (with decision 
making authority) _in writing_. And if necessary--do not threaten, but 
politely suggest your alternatives re- your business choices the next time 
around or in recommendations you will make to your friends and colleagues.

> > If this is going to be their policy, one of the following should be
> > true: a) customers need to be educated of this policy at the time of
> > purchase, so that they can decide if they want to take the risk, or b)
> > customers need to be allowed to examine the merchandise they are about
> > to spend that considerable amount of cash on. Why doesn't Apple allow
> > these things? Because if they did they wouldn't be able to sell as many
> > LCDs.  They'd be be forced to step up their quality control and that
> > would affect their profit margins. Instead, Apple (literally) gives you
> > a black box, one that you're not allowed to open before purchase. How
> > convenient for them.
>
>Who says you're not allowed to open it before purchasing? Did you ask? Have
>you checked appropriate laws on things? Why would you assume that you can't
>open it? As well, why do you assume it's endemic. I have no less than 4 LCD
>screens from Apple in my house, they're all perfect. I've owned or used 9
>Powerbooks, never had an LCD problem. Does that mean my experience is the
>rule? Well, for me. Yours is different.
>
>But, to be blunt, no company has a defect list on their products. No company
>has a list of every known possible defect. There is a reasonable assumption
>that anyone spending thousands of dollars on something would do some
>research on such policies. Error is unavoidable, and there is no product
>manufactured that is 100% error free.

In retrospect, examining the unit would have been wiser. However, I can 
easily see how one would not have done so, or forgotten about it, 
especially in the excitement of buying a new machine. Ordinarily, yes, 
caveat emptor is the standard comment on these cases, but there is one 
source of ambiguity here: To give further credit to Matthew again, one 
needs to distinguish between legal and "reasonable" or 'common sense' 
assumptions. Matthew's perception of the matter at hand as essentially a 
bait-n-switch tactic vs. John's interpretation of this being an acceptable 
and excusable deviation from the norm results from each one's 
interpretation of what is "reasonable" expectations re- the level and 
extent of research the customer should do and what is commonly known to the 
public re- the technologies and manufacturing processes involved. Apple's 
policy's lack of specificity further distances the gap, instead of helping 
bridge it.

I suppose I stand somewhere in between the two on this issue. On one hand, 
I would not call this deception as I am knowledgeable about and experienced 
with the problem; on the other hand, I agree that upon an unsuspecting and 
inexperienced (at least as far as LCD manufacturing limitations and defects 
go) customer, discovery of a defect like this *does* appear as questionable 
business ethics.

> > Would you buy a car if you weren't allowed to kick the tires a bit and
> > take it for a test drive? I don't think so. The only reason I didn't
> > insist on this with the laptop is because I was told I had 10 days to
> > return a defective item, with no stipulations explained to me as to
> > what constitutes "defective". It is not the consumers responsibility to
> > dig through Apple's knowledge base to become educated on the gotchas of
> > their return policy, it's the responsibility of Apple and their sales
> > people.
>
>Why should Apple be held to a standard that no other company or industry is
>required to meet? I agree it sucks, but I fail to see why it's anyone else's
>responsibility to tell you every possible thing that can go wrong at every
>stage of the manufacturing process.
>
>Perhaps they should include a warning that dropping a laptop could damage
>it, with charts showing relative damage from varying heights? Of course,
>that's silly. You're expected to realize that dropping something could
>damage it.

I agree that Apple should not have to be held to a higher standard than 
comparable vendors (unless they try to impose those higher standards upon 
themselves, which they actively do via their marketing and have established 
so through past product history to some extent), but they should also not 
be held to a standard lower than any others, either. In that light, this is 
not a matter of vendor, but policy, which itself appears ambiguous at best, 
legally and literally. If Matthew had run into the same issue with a Dell 
notebook, I doubt he'd be more sympathetic. It just happens that Apple's 
the vendor in this case and he ran into a problem with one of *their* products.

I think the "dropping the laptop" example is an unfair and inaccurate 
anology. Once again, it hinges on the public's knowledge and perception of 
similar products, their functional, structural, and environmental 
limitations, and a bit of common sense. Most people have experience with 
electronic devices and know that they are fragile; most of these people 
have first- or second-hand experience with the results of impact on such 
devices and how they may be affected. Fragility and impact-vulnerability 
are thus arguably well-known facts whose absence--rather than their 
presence--are the exception and therefore should/could be included in 
pre-sale declarations; think of the recent ThinkPads with hard drive 
bracing technologies against impact, or when waterproof watches first came 
on to the market. A general, everyday knowledge and a sense of LCD 
manufacturing technology and pixel-defect rates (especially considering 
that LCD technology--however popular--is still a relatively new one 
entering the market) are not easily arguable as "reasonable expectations" 
or part of consumer common sense. In time they might be, but not today. 
Being a highly visible, cosmetic *and* functional defect, also certainly 
makes it a higher profile issue and source of potential contention from the 
customer who's stuck with one. All the more reason to make the policy more 
visible and less ambiguous, something not only Apple, but all LCD vendors 
and OEMs should attempt.

>I'm really willing to bet that an polite request to power up the machine
>before the sale is closed would not be taken as out of line, especially if
>said request was a requirement for the sale to be complete. Especially if
>you had your credit card in your hand, and that sales person was seeing that
>commission floating right in front of them. And if they grumbled about it,
>you were to, politely, point out that you can always get this somewhere
>else.
>
>This would work REALLY well at the Galleria, since there's an Apple Store on
>Rt. 9, and Micro Center not 5 miles away, and they'll happily stick it to
>the galleria.

I presume from your comments, Matthew, that the return period has elapsed 
and hence you cannot swap the unit? That would be the next wisest move. And 
John's suggestion here is correct; offering to take your business elsewhere 
is always going to be the strongest leverage you have as a customer and you 
should not hesitate to exercise it; and, by all means, avoid 
vendors/retailers who approach such a request suspiciously.

>john
>
>--
>Klingon programs don't do accountancy. For that,  you need a Farengi
>programmer."
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Macpartners mailing list
>Macpartners at mit.edu
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/macpartners

Kerem