[Macpartners] Apple Powerbook Display Scam

[Jeff Solof]

I bought a pair of shoes from LL Bean 10 years ago.  A month ago, the 
sole on one of them cracked and split.  Not normal wear and tear, but a 
major blow out.  When I asked them if their '100% satisfaction 
guarantee' would cover such a thing, they said it was up to me to 
decide.  They credited me the full purchase price of my 10 year old 
shoes against a new pair.

In the short run, they probably lost some money.  (Not much, given the 
margins they make.  :)

But look at the big picture and compare.  I'm doing free ads (like this) 
for LL Bean, while on the other hand, the Mac Partners list at MIT is 
publicly debating whether it's reasonable and customary for a 
manufacturer to refuse to take back a defective product (let's be binary 
about this -- part of the product does not work as designed, advertised, 
or intended -- it's defective!) because they don't agree that 1 or 2 or 
6 bad pixels constitutes a defect.

In the long run, who are the smarter business people?

Jeff



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)
>
>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.
>
>  
>
>>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.
>
>  
>
>>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'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.
>
>john
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/macpartners/attachments/20040217/108c3d29/attachment.htm