[HN Gopher] Products purchased at Apple Store in India cannot be...
___________________________________________________________________
Products purchased at Apple Store in India cannot be refunded or
exchanged
Author : tumblewit
Score : 187 points
Date : 2021-04-15 15:29 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| hasitseth wrote:
| While we are discussing service, I have fond memories of IBM's
| service for Thinkpad. I moved from US to India. Before I left, I
| had sent a Thinkpad for repair. They told me a repair vendor
| (Selectron I think) needs a replacement motherboard from Japan
| (no idea why so!). They promised it will be sent to India to me.
| I doubted that. They not only shipped it to India but also paid
| customs duty as Indian customs won't accept it as repair but
| levied duty as a new laptop! Really miss the great IBM service.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Apple retail policy in Hong Kong[0] is similar, no 14-day returns
| unlike most other countries, and even defective refunds seem
| doubtful (you can see that the policy only specifies conditions
| for exchange, though it does mention refund procedures it doesn't
| state when it would occur and so is likely open to interpretation
| by the management).
|
| [0] https://www.apple.com/hk/shop/help/exchange_return
| ksec wrote:
| Yes Hong Kong has had that since iPhone 4 or 5 if I remember
| correctly. A few years later Apple said the problem were people
| abusing the system, basically buying iPhone, taking out some
| component, or even the Screen, replace them with other parts
| and sell those official parts for profits. Then returning the
| iPhone to Apple.
|
| They also raised the price of latest iPhone by $100 since
| iPhone 5 because of China reselling. So if you exclude VAT or
| Import TAX, ( which HK doesn't have ), It would be the most
| expensive iPhone with the least amount of services.
|
| Mac and others products are normal though.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Still it is an iPhone with two physical SIM slots, which to
| me makes it an interesting deal.
| ksec wrote:
| Yes. That may soon be gone though. China passed the
| regulation on eSIM and may be two more years before they
| make the switch.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| This seems stupid. They should have a 7-day policy or something.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| A friend who was on holiday in Turkey was refused a new iphone
| battery (she was willing to pay for it) at the official Apple
| store as it was not locally bought (she bought it in SF).
|
| So no global warranty, but also no global repair or replacement
| of parts with official parts even when you are willing to pay for
| it.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| This isn't the first time I've heard about a story like this.
| One blew up a few years back on Reddit maybe? I'll have to dig
| it up.
| vivekv wrote:
| I have replaced the keyboard and battery on my2017 Pro in India
| that was purchased in US I bought it in2017 and replaced both
| under applecare in 2020. I had the extended global warranty .
| They took a week to fix it but worked like a breeze . I paid
| nothing for it.
| intev wrote:
| I had a Macbook Pro bought in SF repaired in an Asian country
| (not India) through an authorized reseller because I had Apple
| Care. I didn't even have to pay for shipping. The only downside
| was I had to wait 2 weeks, but I was shocked at how simple and
| straight forward the process was. 10/10 would buy Apple Care
| again.
| tonywastaken wrote:
| I was able to repair a US-bought MacBook at an Apple store in
| Japan with no issues
| rolisz wrote:
| MacBooks have global warranty, iPhones don't. I think this is
| partly to avoid price arbitrage such as going to buy an
| iPhone in a cheaper country. I'm not sure why this is not a
| concern for laptops. Maybe those are more targeted towards
| businesses, which are not so price sensitive.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > I think this is partly to avoid price arbitrage such as
| going to buy an iPhone in a cheaper country.
|
| There isn't much arbitrage for new Apple products: if
| anything, iPhones are _more_ expensive in other countries,
| especially LEDC countries due to import tariffs (e.g.
| Brazil and India) and VAT.
|
| That said, I can understand phone companies, in general,
| not having worldwide warranties because localized phones
| will have different radio hardware (well, prior to LTE...).
|
| -----
|
| I just found Apple's current warranty doc for the iPhone,
| iPad, and iPod and it does mention international coverage (
| https://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/products/ios-
| warranty-d... ). It would be bad PR for Apple if tourists
| and businesspeople in foreign countries couldn't get their
| phones repaired on holiday or during a critical business
| trip.
| selectodude wrote:
| The price arbitrage is USA -> basically everywhere else
| on earth.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| That still benefits Apple though as it means the profits
| from the sale is already repatriated - as opposed to
| being stuck overseas (see: Apple's cash hoard stuck in
| Dublin or the Netherlands).
| egwor wrote:
| I have a totally different experience. I accidentally submerged
| my iPhone X in the sea as I got off a boat[1]. The phone
| although supposedly considered waterproof went mental and
| basically stopped working. I was flying back via Singapore (a
| week later) and went into the apple store at the airport. They
| replaced the phone and got me back up and running before my
| flight back to London. I live and had bought the phone in the
| UK. They even had special versions of the UK phone for this
| scenario.
|
| [1] I was in the Philippines and I was getting off a boat in
| shallow sea water. My phone was in the bottom pocket of my
| beach shorts, and I walked through the sea water for maybe two
| to three metres distance up to waist height depth. This should
| have been ok for the depth I went.
|
| Their suspicion was that the outer seal had failed (even though
| it had always been in a case).
| 45ure wrote:
| >I have a totally different experience. I accidentally
| submerged my iPhone X in the sea as I got off a boat[1]
|
| You were lucky and got it replaced under goodwill, as iPhone
| X has an IP67 rating[1] and specific about sea/salt water
| damage -- the kind you have described. Back home, you would
| have had to deal with a lot of grief[2].
|
| [1] https://www.iphonehacks.com/2018/04/iphone-x-ip-67-water-
| res...
|
| [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204104
| Alexinaps wrote:
| I don't consider it an abuse as they just offered to play on
| their own terms, no one forced them to accept!
| sdajk3n423 wrote:
| Why does India seem to be so full of scammers? I can't go a day
| without an Indian robocalling me and trying to phish my credit
| card or SS#. Is this something engrained in the culture?
| darrenoc wrote:
| This is harmful racial stereotyping. Most of the hardest
| workers I know are Indian.
| sdajk3n423 wrote:
| How is this stereotyping? I can say with 100% confidence that
| 100% of the malicious scam calls that I get are from India.
| rocknor wrote:
| Because of your stupid statement about it being ingrained
| in the culture. It's more like a combination of
| unemployment, English know-how, ineffective/overworked
| police because of underfunding, the existence of this
| attack vector and a little tech knowledge to exploit it.
| sdajk3n423 wrote:
| The Philippines meets all of these criteria that you
| enumerated, why don't they pump out scammers like India?
| rocknor wrote:
| You're on HN and it's supposed to have somewhat better
| discourse, don't bring the quality of this site down.
| Next time try googling the population (!), per capita
| income, rates of English profiency and technical know-
| how, international phone calling prices, unemployment
| rates of the two countries... and apply some basic
| statistics / common sense. There are just some of the
| factors, there are probably more.
| sdajk3n423 wrote:
| Have you tried googling these statistics? They are very
| similar (except for total population). Any more straw-man
| arguments to share?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| geodel wrote:
| As an Indian I agree with what you said. Hell one top
| government official recently said Indians are by nature
| mostly non law-abiding people.
|
| There are innumerable street smart sayings used even by
| otherwise educated and well paid folks which just amount to
| "Benefit by hook or crook and fuck this world".
| sss111 wrote:
| Largely the same reasons that genuine call centers, IT support
| and other technical functions are often outsourced to India: a
| large pool of reasonably well educated, relatively cheap
| resources who mainly speak English sufficiently well to talk to
| "customers". Plus for scam purposes, it's obviously easier to
| evade US and other target country law enforcement by being
| thousands of miles away and with a local police force that may
| be unable or unwilling to take action against them.
| ttty2 wrote:
| It's not as bad in US and reason is purely economics of fraud.
| Very large fraction of US population is paid $30 an hour compared
| to Indian population. Biggest problem isn't even market in India
| which has lot of demand.
| krtkush wrote:
| Apple India has one of the worst after sales services. If
| something goes wrong with your device, they'll charge 2.5k (INR)
| to just look at it and tell you what is wrong with your device.
| fumar wrote:
| That is ~$33 USD for an inspection. What if you have
| AppleCare+?
| manquer wrote:
| You have to understand that Apple service in India is
| outsourced. The sub contractor has no interest in helping
| you. They only care how they can keep their numbers low.
|
| They charged me $500 to replace the defective keyboard in the
| Mac Pro 2-3years back within 3 months of purchase and said I
| put glue on the key which came off.
|
| I have a friend for whose new iphone 10 pro they refused to
| replace despite servicing the screen thrice and it clearly
| was manufacturing problem ( they agree) but will not replace
| the phone only the screen. He spent hours on the phone and no
| escalation he could do to get them to do it.
|
| Every time i see in Europe or US, the service levels are
| starkly different, I have got replacement devices in minutes
| ,it is so bad in India that I and many people I know get
| their idevices serviced when we vist stateside.
| xtracto wrote:
| AppleCare outside of the USA is a joke. Here in Mexico we
| had one of those butterfly keyboard macbooks for which a
| key failed.
|
| The "licensed" apple provider said the would need to change
| a whole lot of parts to replace the keyboard.
|
| I went to an "unlicensed " workshop and they only charged
| the price of the keyboard and 500 pesos for the work. A++
| sans-serif wrote:
| In my experience Americans sort of take for granted the breadth
| and depth of consumer protection you enjoy. I'd wager that in an
| insignificant portion of countries Apple expanded to, they have
| had to significantly cut back on refunds/warrantees they offer to
| combat fraud and abuse.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > In my experience Americans sort of take for granted the
| breadth and depth of consumer protection you enjoy.
|
| As a european, it's amusing to hear you say that as the
| majority of European countries have far, far more stringent
| consumer-protection regs than the US, such as mandatory 2 year
| warranties, distance-selling laws, legal rights to a refund or
| replacement, and so on. Apple's 90 day warranty is a joke when
| you can buy the same product, for almost the same price after
| factoring-in VAT, with a 2 year warranty only a 5 hour flight
| away...
| ksec wrote:
| That is why you used to read about Apple's exceptional
| services. They are and only happens in the state. Such as
| free repair for certain thing or giving cheaper discount to
| repair etc. In EU and UK those services are expected.
|
| Now Apple doesn't do it. They push you to buy a new product
| whenever possible along with AppleCare+. Apple Retail
| employees dont run on commission in US ( Not sure if that is
| still the case). I remember someone said Apple Retail Italy
| runs on commission basis. I also know Apple Retail employees
| also has KPI based on AppleCare+ they sold in the past few
| years.
|
| Yes.... the whole Apple Retail experience is going against
| how Steve Job originally envisioning it. For Tim Cook, it is
| nothing more than a cost center on balance sheet.
| gambiting wrote:
| And everywhere in EU sellers _have to_ accept a return within
| 14 days for any online purchases, for any reason. And no,
| they can 't charge a restocking fee. You can only be asked to
| pay for the postage back.
|
| And in general, the responsibility for the goods is always
| with the seller first, manufacturer second. If your laptop
| breaks and the seller says "oh the manufacturer declined
| warranty" then sorry, tough luck, it's the seller who has to
| repair/replace it now.
| pembrook wrote:
| In the EU however, you generally are paying for that extra
| protection in the form of higher prices from retailers.
| There's no free lunch. The market isn't perfectly
| efficient, but it's _pretty damn efficient._ It 's not like
| companies operating in countries where warranty is the law
| will suddenly say "welp, I guess we'll just have to accept
| less profit in the EU then, hopefully global consumers
| don't catch on!"
|
| Whether you pay for extra protections via higher prices
| automatically (EU) or as an a la carte add-on (US) is
| irrelevant. On a risk adjusted basis, the cost is the same.
|
| The EU simply cuts off the consumer's ability to take more
| risk for lower cost. They force you to buy the warranty
| every time.
| gambiting wrote:
| I'm honestly curious - how so? In all my adult life I
| have been comparing prices between EU and US and they are
| always about the same once you factor in taxes. Yes the
| VAT can make items slightly more expensive, but VAT has
| absolutely nothing to do with the retailers
| responsibility for the product, right?
|
| >>On a risk adjusted basis, the cost is the same.
|
| I'd love to see how you came to that conclusion. In EU
| the seller is always responsible for 2 years after sale
| for the product, in the US a 2 year warranty will be few
| hundred dollars on laptops and other expensive items. The
| difference is definitely not the same.
| pembrook wrote:
| This has been the subject of numerous academic papers.
| Again, it's not like the EU government has somehow fooled
| companies into losing money in the EU.
|
| I highly doubt you're doing true absolute calculations
| factoring in all the supply chain, macroeconomic, and tax
| considerations.
|
| The reason you can't easily compare this at a glance is
| complicated by currency fluctuations, shipping costs,
| labor costs, embedded VAT in prices vs. taxes added at
| purchase, VAT rebates, differences in EU warranty law vs.
| purchased warranties in the US, "discount" marketing
| tactics of American retailers vs. European retailers,
| everyday low prices vs. seasonal discounting, etc.
|
| Trust me when I say you're not enjoying some free lunch
| at the expense of corporate earnings by living in the EU.
| You're simply restricting consumer and entrepreneur
| choices, by preemptively deciding what the consumer
| needs.
|
| Which can be good or bad depending on the item in
| question. Computer hardware? Not sure we need the nanny
| state involved, there's healthy competition and you run
| the risk of stifling new business models from arising
| (it's no secret that Europe isn't exactly a hotbed of
| tech innovation). Healthcare? Now that's a different
| story.
| iamcurious wrote:
| > This has been the subject of numerous academic papers.
|
| Those papers sound interesting. Can you recommend any?
|
| >it's no secret that Europe isn't exactly a hotbed of
| tech innovation
|
| When you mean innovation, do you refer to Xerox and Bell
| Labs? Or to Microsoft and Apple? Cause europe has a lot
| of the first kind, not much of the second kind. And even
| when they do, they might end being sold out. Like Nokia
| and Skype.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>Trust me when I say you're not enjoying some free lunch
| at the expense of corporate earnings by living in the EU.
| You're simply restricting consumer and entrepreneur
| choices, by preemptively deciding what the consumer
| needs.
|
| I mean, I do see your point. But we as a society have
| decided that sellers should be responsible for a minimum
| of 2 years for any items they sell. That's just what we
| (society) require from anyone willing to run a business.
| We also require them not to dump toxic waste into rivers,
| and pay their taxes - all enterpreneurs the world over
| have certain obligations to the state, US just placed the
| bar lower than elsewhere. I don't mean to say which
| approach is "right", but I do mean to say that as a
| consumer I like having greater protections in the EU,
| even if "perhaps" it means the products bought here cost
| more.
| vetinari wrote:
| > within 14 days for any online purchases
|
| Almost. It does not apply to custom-made products. Apple
| resellers consider BTO models to be custom-made and thus
| not eligible for this protection. But at least they warn
| you upfront.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > Apple resellers consider BTO models to be custom-made
| and thus not eligible for this protection.
|
| I thought the only get-out for Apple was _personalized_
| items, namely those with laser-engraving. BTO /JIT orders
| where you choose from a narrow set of options (e.g. RAM
| size, HDD size, etc) in Apple's case probably wouldn't be
| BTO because they tend to pre-assemble a modest stockpile
| of all of the different BTO configs.
|
| Lower-volume products, like the $6000 Mac Pro might have
| a case, but it's not like a returned (but new, even
| unopened) MacPro isn't resalable...
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Aren't the customers who don't return their purchases
| subsidizing the cost of the ones who do? I'd much prefer to
| pay a restocking fee (or to have more stringent return
| policies) if it meant I could pay a little less up front.
| gambiting wrote:
| I mean...what a weird way to look at it. Yes I suppose
| you're right but we as a society decided that if sellers
| want to sell things remotely(online, through post,
| through telephone sales) then it's only fair that
| customers have the right to inspect the item and return
| it if they don't like it. You don't have that right if
| you bought the item in a physical store because you could
| inspect the item there.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| > when you can buy the same product, for almost the same
| price after factoring-in VAT
|
| Uh, not at all.
|
| Converted to USD and without tax below. Apple products are
| 11-16% more expensive in Europe
|
| iPhone 12: US price $699 - Europe price without VAT $807
|
| iPhone 12 Pro Max: US price $1099 - Europe price without VAT
| $1256
|
| iPad Air: US price $599 - Europe price without VAT $667
|
| Macbook Air: US price $999 - Europe price without VAT $1126
| zepto wrote:
| My experience in Europe was that the result of those laws is
| businesses that operate within the letter of the law, whereas
| in the US they often operate more generously.
|
| For example Apple in the US let me return a first gen 12.9"
| iPad Pro after about 4 months and exchange it for the 9.7"
| version the week it came out.
|
| I would have expected a flat out no from retailers in Europe.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| > In my experience Americans sort of take for granted the
| breadth and depth of consumer protection you enjoy.
|
| Please. American consumer protection is almost non-existent,
| especially when compared with places like the EU.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| nothing to do with consumer protection, everything to do with
| culture. the majority of people simply don't abuse it.
| duxup wrote:
| I worked at a chain pizza place growing up that advertised its
| money back offer if you didn't like your pizza. When they
| advertised it I just assumed a lot of people would take
| advantage of it.
|
| Our store was one of the busiest in the US for a single store.
| One guy ... just one guy abused it regularly. Beyond him almost
| nobody ever took advantage of the offer at all... Easy enough
| for the store manager to tell that guy to knock it off and
| there ya go.
|
| What I assumed was a crazy / unwise policy, effectively cost
| them nothing, hardly was ever used, didn't require any new
| processes at all, and amounted to just a advertising slogan.
|
| I was surprised and impressed.
| moftz wrote:
| People are probably more embarrassed to ask for their money
| back on something they have partially or entirely eaten. I
| can barely muster up the courage to tell my waiter that my
| dinner order wasn't quite right but I have zero problem with
| buying a couple different versions of a product and returning
| the ones I don't like.
| pbadenski wrote:
| That's interesting - I hate wasting food, I have never
| complained about my order (and not planning too, unless the
| food is spoiled I guess). If I don't like the food, I'll
| just never order again from the same place. I would
| definitely appreciate a company that offers money refund on
| food "no questions asked" even if I was never going to use
| it - it shows respect.
| kube-system wrote:
| In the US, Aldi, and I think some other grocery stores do
| this.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| If I were the manager I'd just say, if the guy calls, let me
| talk to him, and then tell him "It doesn't seem you really
| like our pizzas, we don't want to ruin your dinner, so why
| don't you order somewhere else?".
|
| A better manager would figure out how to keep him as a paying
| customer...
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Agreed, but I don't think Americans take it for granted; I
| think they just don't abuse it. By not abusing a good faith
| return policy you allow the company to provide one that is
| consumer friendly.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| There's substantial abuse of these policies in the US.
| petee wrote:
| Eh, look what happened to LL Bean, they had one of the last
| real good faith return policies, and it was abused to hard
| they had to reverse lifetime warranty on existing products to
| two(?) years. And create a list to track individuals making
| the returns
|
| I hear they'll still honor it in some obvious cases...
| selectodude wrote:
| REI did the same thing. People would return ten year old
| jackets for a full refund because a feather was sticking
| out.
|
| Even Costco has drastically scaled back the return policy
| on electronics for that reason. In large enough groups,
| people suck.
| hasitseth wrote:
| Apple only wants to use India to sell its stuff, particularly old
| model goods. It has avoided for longest time to provide Apple
| service through its own stores. It uses reseller network that is
| not the same as having own stores and service. Now this is
| amazing that Apple won't accept returns in India when Apple goods
| bought via Amazon can be returned in India!
| valuearb wrote:
| India is a terrible place to run a business, Apple's taking the
| right approach.
| rvalue wrote:
| I am looking forward to buying the next Macbook that comes out
| and knowing this kind of makes it troublesome. India does not
| have physical Apple stores and its not that easy to try out new
| products. Apple products are not magic and also have their own
| problems. Knowing that there is a fair refund policy for Indian
| consumers like any other country would have been a fair business
| practice and consumer friendly but unfortunately Apple does not
| see it like that.
|
| Completely ending the refund/return is a stupid decision.
| geodel wrote:
| What all products do you get refund in India? I couldn't get a
| fucking refund for brand new clothes after 10 minute after
| purchase. Markets are littered with messages "once sold cannot
| be returned"
|
| Besides government always loudly announces that any company
| doing business in India have to follow Indian laws. So why
| would any outside company bring more generous practices in
| India that is not required by law and not followed by most
| Indian businesses.
| gkcgautam wrote:
| Previously Apple India allowed one to buy extended Apple Care+
| within 1 year of buying the device but they changed the duration
| to 60 days last year. Now I have a Macbook Pro 16" without
| extended warranty because I had already crossed the 60 day mark
| when they changed their policy and so they won't let me extend
| the warranty. This is going to cost me a lot!
| robbomacrae wrote:
| Why is it going to cost you a lot? Are you expecting it to
| break? As long as you take reasonable care and don't drop it
| into a pool those things are pretty reliable. I've bought 4
| macbooks since 2012 and passed them on to family whenever I
| wanted a new one and they are all still working despite the
| occasional bump.
| hesarenu wrote:
| You can't take nothing for granted. My mac mini started
| having issues just before end of warranty. Now after the end
| of warranty to fix it would cost me about 1/2 its original
| price. My pro which is out of warranty also has issues again
| fixing would cost me the same as buying a new pc laptop.
| Apple devices are very good when they are under warranty at
| least in India.
| cpcallen wrote:
| I think this policy change is global--or at any rate, it
| applies in the UK as well. Disappointing, because previously I
| would buy second-hand but less-than-year-old Apple products
| specifically so I could purchase the extended AppleCare
| warranty on them. A great way to get a recent machine at a
| decent discount.
| sss111 wrote:
| Apple had a lot of trouble with the Indian market back the early
| 2010s. They had to pull AppleCare+ out of the country because
| people were abusing it a lot. [+]
|
| Same goes for the country's biggest online retailers, both Amazon
| and Flipkart also switched to a replacement-only policy in India.
|
| "Most analysts agree that many many buyers were abusing the
| company's refund policy. With many buying latest smartphones, and
| returning them after a week after trying them "[1]
|
| I've seen return abuse in the US, not sure if it's higher than
| what I have seen in India. I tried to research this topic back in
| high school for a paper, it was hard to find concrete data to
| compare the two countries.
|
| [1]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech-news/amazon-ends-
| re...
|
| [+] edit: I feel like I need to clarify what "abusing" really
| was.
|
| AppleCare+ used to cover two incidents of Theft, Loss and
| accidents.
|
| Third party resellers essentially activated an iphone and marked
| it as lost. Then, after getting a new replacement iPhone from
| Apple, they would go on and sell it to customers.
|
| Nowadays, you can only get AppleCare (not the plus) in India
| which does not cover theft or accidental damage.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| How is this scamming or abuse? There is a return window that
| people are taking advantage of whose purpose it to let unsure
| people decide whether they want the device or not. People are
| using this promise at face value and then being called abusers
| and scammers
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| Yeah I'm having understanding how this is a scam too. Are
| they rebuying the same phone a week later? If not, they are
| using the system as intended.
| thitcanh wrote:
| I think the answer is not "not"
|
| It's abuse because people buy it with the intent to return
| it. Buying it and then honestly changing your mind is fine,
| but Amazon probably determined that wasn't the case here.
| jetrink wrote:
| Why would people want to have an iPhone for only a week? That
| sounds like more of a hassle than it is worth. Just to see what
| they are like?
| mciancia wrote:
| Unless you are trying new iPhone every week ;)
| _jal wrote:
| Same reason people do the same thing with clothes.
| cghendrix wrote:
| And what would that be?
| mbit8 wrote:
| wearing it for some special occasion like a date or
| meeting and then returning it, so that's why it doesn't
| work in low income countries
| cghendrix wrote:
| Ah makes sense now. Similar to people buying tv's for the
| Super Bowl and then return it. Just never thought of that
| with phones.
| oblio wrote:
| Random guess? Low/very low income folks, wanting a status
| symbol they can't afford.
| AppleIsWeaknes wrote:
| They are regarded as a veblen good everywhere. Getting a
| lower quality product at a high price is by definition
| veblen good.
|
| You pay for Apple products because it's impractical and
| hard to use. It shows the world you are part of the group.
| gambiting wrote:
| I always wonder how extremely dedicated someone has to be
| to bashing a product/group to make a whole username
| dedicated to it.
|
| >>You pay for Apple products because it's impractical and
| hard to use
|
| Exactly, that's why developers who charge big money for
| their time use them - because they are impractical and
| hard to use. You cracked it mate.
| sss111 wrote:
| In India returns are almost always picked up from your home.
| No need to print labels or package it.
|
| On the other hand, In the US, more often than not, you have
| to pack up your item and drop it off to a store to return it.
| [deleted]
| sheikheddy wrote:
| Maybe they wanted to flex on social media? People do weird
| things for "clout".
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| Maybe it's a status symbol thing. Rent a designer electronic
| for an important meeting or a date or something to look good.
| Return it afterwards and get your money back.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| As status symbols.
|
| Many people also abuse return policies to buy expensive
| cameras, use them to shoot nice pictures on vacation and then
| sending them back. They can still keep the pictures, so the
| camera lost its value for them.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| They know a lot of places will let you rent right?
|
| With bulletproof insurance and the right accessories.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| They also know free is cheaper than rent.
| LanceH wrote:
| If I were to wager as to the single most common type of
| fraud of this type, I would guess it is women "buying" a
| dress with the intent to wear it once and return it.
|
| This is also why the terms on rental cars can get very
| specific.
| rchaud wrote:
| I don't blame them, it is shocking how much dresses cost.
| As a man, a well-tailored suit will last me a decade,
| waistline permitting. Nobody will ever say, 'Uh, you're
| wearing that suit AGAIN?' The rest of the time a simple
| blazer and button down shirt will do the job.
| LanceH wrote:
| I mentioned it because it seems the most socially
| acceptable and common example of this kind of behavior.
|
| Now that I think of it, the "eat the steak then complain"
| tactic is probably the most common that's in this
| ballpark.
|
| Personally, I do judge the people I've seen do this. They
| are self-centered and all did it for social reasons. If
| someone did it for a job interview I might understand,
| but invariably it was to have something they didn't want
| to pay for.
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| >Why would people want to have an iPhone for only a week?
|
| Indian culture is about display of wealth. Wealthy
| individuals are respected and get access to inner clubs while
| the people who don't have much don't get invited anywhere.
|
| College students might want to leave a good impression at a
| party and might get an iPhone so people start taking them
| seriously.
|
| Similarly, a guy might get an iPhone so his date considers
| him important.
|
| iPhone is status symbol in India because not everyone can
| afford it.
|
| I can certainly and easily afford it but I am still using
| android because I don't feel the need of uncessarry attention
| akamhy wrote:
| ^ Indian culture
|
| Every culture
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| Not really in some cultures talking about money and
| displaying wealth is not considered good and people look
| down on this behaviour.
| Krasnol wrote:
| Germany is such culture and it still happens with
| accessories and clothing.
|
| Apple is at the centre of this. You see people who
| obviously can't afford it with those (probably) fake
| AirPods all over the place. Sometimes they're not even
| connected. It's THE "look at me, I can afford it"
| electronics brand display for the middle and lower class.
| newsbinator wrote:
| People have more time than money.
|
| If you had a Star Trek replicator in your home that could
| replicate a brand new iPhone for you for free that lasts a
| week then poofs out of existence, you'd go ahead and use it,
| probably more than once.
|
| If you don't mind the hassle and the ethical, er, annoyance
| of going to a store, waiting in queues, having $1000+
| temporarily blocked off from your savings, a bunch of back
| and forth with the sales people, etc, then that's equivalent
| to replicating yourself an iPhone for a week for free.
| truth_ wrote:
| I knew of a guy who "bought" Apple Laptops from Amazon and
| used it as his DJ laptop and worked some gigs where the Apple
| laptop was a status symbol of how big a deal he is. He used
| to perform in small town and rural India and organizers paid
| him [?]3k-30k per night. He returned his laptop after doing
| 3-4 such gigs in the "marriage season" in India. He did this
| 7-8 times from different addresses and different accounts.
| easton wrote:
| After 21 gigs (3 gigs * 7 laptops) he would've made around
| 21k USD (presuming he was making at least 10k rupees per
| night, which between 3k-30k would've made sense). Seems
| like at that point you just buy the darn laptop, it's not
| like you need something more than an Air for DJing, and
| 1/21th of your revenue to be legal seems like not a bad
| idea.
| truth_ wrote:
| He is a scammer. He had no DJ training either. To most
| people living in rural India, "DJ" is just loud beats
| added to an existing song and abruptly cutting them and
| playing another one. He is not a real DJ, and he had
| bills to pay.
|
| No, he mostly got paid [?]3-[?]4k per night. Purchasing
| power of rural India is very low.
| thitcanh wrote:
| You're missing the point. Why buy something if you don't
| have to? _That's_ the reasoning here. You don't spend
| money, your product doesn't depreciate, you always have a
| brand new product. You only have to deal with your guilt
| and ethics or lack thereof.
| dharmab wrote:
| I think part of the point was he always had the current
| model.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| 30k/night is about $400 - that's decent enough money to
| afford to buy a fully-loaded MacBook Pro after only a
| handful of gigs.
| egeozcan wrote:
| If you're living gig to gig, spending the earnings from a
| couple may not be an option. Doesn't justify what's being
| done, I'm just arguing against this single argument.
| devenblake wrote:
| Not if you have bills to pay.
| yarcob wrote:
| Only if someone else pays for your living expenses.
| akamhy wrote:
| YouTube product reviews! People try to copy MKBHD, but as
| they don't get free products from Apple unlike Marques they
| buy them for a week.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| I feel most non-MKBHD reviewers do this everywhere else
| too.
| tumblewit wrote:
| Remember Apple sells its refurbished products. Yes it costs
| them (and as sales increase they also get more returns) to
| refurbish and sell them back but not accepting returns or
| refunds is a completely anti-consumer and not a customer
| friendly policy for a company that claims is all about the
| customer.
| threatofrain wrote:
| If Apple can't effectively administrate their nice plans and
| the consequence is that a few abusers ruin it for everyone,
| then it's better for customers to not have it. Too bad.
| ballenf wrote:
| If they claimed to take returns but always found an excuse
| not to take them, I'd call that anti-consumer.
|
| Maybe Apple could just give a discount if you give up your
| return option at the point of sale.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > With many buying latest smartphones, and returning them after
| a week after trying them
|
| Lots of products should have a return window this long or
| longer.
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| It's not as bad in US and reason is purely economics of fraud.
|
| Very large fraction of US population is paid $30 an hour
| compared to Indian population which makes scamming not worth
| the trouble
|
| I live in India and I've worked in the US I know Indians just
| have too much time at their hand, so even schemes which take a
| lot of your time with little payoff are worth it here.
|
| And the reason people don't use their time to achieve something
| more productive like starting companies etc...is because
| government procedures are very hard to understand, and you get
| penalties left and right, even starting a micro industry like
| machining shop is hard, power is not available continuously
| even at top industrial zones in India, fixed cost of
| electricity connection is high in industrial area and
| government is very insensitive to business owners so only very
| large and the ones close to policies are able to navigate.
|
| The biggest problem isn't even market in India which has lot of
| demand, it's the costs you didn't plan for which seem low on
| surface the deeper you dig, the costs just keep increasing
| untill you are left with nothing and in debt so starting a
| business isn't very popular here and people limit the size of
| their success to not get in trouble.
| aurizon wrote:
| India has had trouble shaking the socialist mud off it's
| boots. Back in the late 40's and 50's huge numbers of
| bureaucratic make-work jobs were created. A thicket of state
| and local permits and rules have crippled India to this day.
| There are few large scale Korean Chaebols - instead there is
| a frenzy of small shops. Now all these bureacrats and small
| shops are a force to be reckoned with as the rationalize
| production millions of people would be turfed out of their
| feather-beds and made to work. Ask any man from India - India
| will only prosper in the Chinese way if they change.
| asimpletune wrote:
| I've been in Mexico for a few months and it sort of the same
| situation here. Sometimes I find it outright bizarre how
| hostile the government is to simple things that would allow
| people to improve their station in life on their own with a
| business.
| sperrholz wrote:
| > people were abusing it a lot
|
| Why frame it so negatively? You could as well say "people saw
| that Apple was ripe for disruption".
| tedunangst wrote:
| Well, why are people upset Apple doesn't allow returns
| anymore? Maybe the people returning the items were ripe for
| disruption.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| That may well be the most hacker news / silicon valley
| comment ever... I don't even want to know if it's /s or not!
| :)
| [deleted]
| threatofrain wrote:
| It's a framing from the perspective of other customers who
| are paying for things, but are now losing out.
| [deleted]
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I disagree with categorizing this as abuse. The company was
| offering a refund policy. The customers were using it.
|
| My friend Kevin used to test out different GPUs when he was
| writing a game engine. He'd buy one, install it on his
| computer, run the engine, then return it a few days later. They
| often had a 10% restocking fee. Was he abusing policy?
|
| It's the same sort of logic banks use to justify "identity
| theft." Ah yes, it's the fault of the customer, not the banks'
| poor verification methods.
|
| That said, it's true that when large amounts of people do a
| thing, you'll have to adjust policy. But it's not their fault
| for taking advantage of policies they're legally allowed to
| use, and that the company freely offers.
| zhaowang wrote:
| This is definitely abuse. The policy is there does not mean
| customer can use it in whatever way you like. The company
| honor the policy also does not mean the consumer is not
| abusing the policy.
|
| Remember Costco permanently blocked some consumers due to
| abusing the return policy? Costco honors the policy, but
| those consumers were still considered as abusing the policy.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Exactly. That's Costco's right, and it's an example of the
| system working as intended.
|
| Let me ask you this. Do you agree with illegal copyright
| infringement being classified as "piracy"? My issue here is
| the terminology. It's deceptive to classify this behavior
| as "abuse," as if someone was kicking a puppy.
|
| It's an asshole thing to do, but it's not abuse. No one is
| doing anything illegal, and everyone is free to feel
| however they wish about their morals.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Actually you are wrong. There are absolutely laws against
| return abuse.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud
|
| This is the problem when people go around pretending like
| they are technically correct, when they aren't.
|
| Everyone else, intuitively understood the problem with
| return abuse, except for you. Which is why you got this
| wrong.
|
| If you had focused less on trying to find some clever
| hack or technically, then you wouldn't have been so
| misinformed on this issue.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| No, there's nothing in that list even vaguely related to
| anything I've said. It shares a name. It's not the same
| thing at all:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud#Types
|
| Not one of those examples is "the act of purchasing an
| item with the intent to return it."
|
| Also, be less aggressive. We're having a conversation
| here. It's not a battle.
|
| The entry you're looking for is Wardrobing, and it's most
| certainly not illegal:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobing
|
| The Talk page even has someone asking the very same
| question I am: Why is it fraud?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wardrobing
|
| It's not fraud. It's not "abuse," and it's not illegal.
| You're free to feel however you wish about it.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > It's not fraud. It's not "abuse," and it's not illegal
|
| Yes it is. You are wrong.
|
| https://www.news24.com/w24/Style/Fashion/Trends/wardrobin
| g-e...
|
| From the article:
|
| "as it is an act that can, in fact, be prosecute"
|
| https://www.spatzlawfirm.com/blog/2019/08/what-is-return-
| fra...
|
| "Purchasing an item and using it for a short period of
| time before returning (also known as wardrobing or "free
| renting")"
|
| Its illegal. Thats what the sources say. The 2nd link is
| from a law firm. Your facts are wrong.
|
| > https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-
| transactions/retur...
|
| "Below are some common types of return fraud:
|
| Wardrobing (or "renting"): Buying clothes or other items
| for one-time use and then returning them"
|
| " For example, wardrobing may be next to impossible to
| prove"
|
| https://www.allcriminaldefense.law/what-is-criminal-
| return-f...
|
| "People that engage in 'wardrobing' or 'free renting,'
| are also committing return fraud."
|
| https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/fraud-against-
| retaile...
|
| " Return fraud
|
| Renting or Wardrobing: When someone buys an item
| specifically on a short-term basis with the intent to
| return it, this is known as renting or wardrobing. An
| example is buying a dress for a special occasion and
| returning it after it has been worn."
|
| https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/credit-
| cards/worn...
|
| "Wardrobing might sound like an innocent thing to do--
| after all, many of us have returned something we've
| already worn at least once in our lives. But the truth is
| that wardrobing is actually considered "return fraud."
|
| "It's technically illegal""
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Again, you keep referencing links that have nothing to do
| with the issue at hand.
|
| - _In a recent Florida case , a Miami socialite, Meghana
| Rajadhyaksha, was found guilty for purchasing over $130k
| in designer purses from retail giant TJ MAXX and also
| purchasing similar knock-offs from Amazon where she
| swapped the designer tags out and returned the Amazon
| knock-offs to TJ MAXX to receive a full refund._
|
| I agree this is fraud! That's literally deceiving in
| order to receive money. There's nothing deceptive about
| using a policy that the store offers.
|
| - _The Florida statutes define return fraud as obtaining
| or using a receipt in a fraudulent manner_
|
| Ditto.
|
| You're free to keep repeating that I have no idea what
| I'm talking about and so on, but at this point it's
| becoming quite boring for readers, and everything has
| been said. We simply agree to disagree, and that's that.
|
| Now, please stop calling me a criminal. It's not nice,
| and it's also not accurate.
|
| If you dig up a single case of someone being prosecuted
| for using a policy that the store offers, without
| modifying the receipt or the item, let me know.
| stale2002 wrote:
| I quoted you like 7 sources. (I editted it afterwords,
| sorry)
|
| Read them again.
|
| There are multiple sources, that I quoted, that literally
| say that it is illegal. They use the words illegal to
| describe wardrobing.
|
| > Now, please stop calling me a criminal.
|
| Well the sources say that you are a criminal.
|
| One specifically said "It's technically illegal"
|
| > We simply agree to disagree,
|
| No. The lawyers say that you are wrong. The actual legal
| websites say that you are a criminal. They literally call
| it illegal.
|
| Here was another quote "People that engage in
| 'wardrobing' or 'free renting,' are also committing
| return fraud."
|
| Return fraud, in this quote, is referencing the Florida
| law.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I reject your sources and substitute my own: http://fashi
| onlawwiki.pbworks.com/w/page/11611271/Wardrobing...
|
| _Although wardrobing is, arguably, unethical, there are
| no statutes or case law that specifically render it
| illegal. Whether wardrobing should even be considered an
| abuse of retail policies would depend on the retailers'
| specific return policies. Some retailers welcome returns
| of clothing in any condition, therefore, one can hardly
| argue that the return of any item, in any condition is an
| abuse of that policy._
|
| We can sit here and cite sources all day at each other,
| or you can find a case of someone being prosecuted for
| wardrobing. Once you do, I would be more than happy to
| listen and to change my mind on the issue.
|
| In case it helps, I currently live in Seattle, and the
| story I related in my original comment happened in
| Boston, I believe. I'm also about to be moving back to
| Missouri. (You seem to be focusing on Florida for some
| reason, so I thought I'd give you a few trails to
| follow.)
| stale2002 wrote:
| > I reject your sources
|
| So you don't care about what actual legal firms say?
|
| I am giving you links to actual law firms!
|
| You can't just say "well these 7 legal experts are wrong"
| and expect to be taken seriously.
|
| > We can sit here and cite sources
|
| Wtf dude. Sources and the legal experts and lawyers know
| more about this than you do.
|
| If a bunch of law firms say that it is illegal, then
| clearly it is illegal in some places.
|
| So, that means that we can call it fraud, because it is
| illegal is some places.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I bow out of this discussion since you are clearly
| looking for a fight, and seem to be having a bad day. I
| hope your day improves.
|
| (Once more, I gave you information about (a) where I
| live, and therefore where the _relevant_ laws are, and
| (b) pointed out that there are many, many citations
| saying that Wardrobing is an asshole move (as I said) but
| not illegal. That is my basis for rejecting your claims.
| It 's not impossible to search the case law for someone
| being prosecuted for Wardrobing, and I encourage you to
| do so; if you find someone who has been convicted under
| any state law, I would be genuinely interested in hearing
| about it, since that would likely change my mind.
| Irrelevant sources, however, won't.)
| [deleted]
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Those are different things. Taking advantage of a return "for
| any reason" policy is fine. Stealing money by lying about
| your identity is not okay.
| mavelikara wrote:
| This is equivalent of a thief arguing that they entered the
| victim's property because the doors were unlocked.
|
| Yes, it is abuse.
| NopeNotToday wrote:
| A return policy is not a rental program. Yes, this is abuse.
| f311a wrote:
| Start producing something by yourself. You will be very happy
| with such "non-abusive" uses that generate you losses.
|
| If you are an honest seller, you can't even resell returned
| products as brand new.
| clintonc wrote:
| > Was he abusing policy?
|
| Yes. Here, abuse means misuse, which must be interpreted
| relative to the intent of the ones making the policy (or else
| it's meaningless). The intent is clear: for customers to be
| able to return the item if they are not satisfied. It is not
| a borrow/rental policy.
| cblackthornekc wrote:
| Yes? That is abusing the policy. Sounds like he was trying to
| start a business and wanted to do QA. Then you need to pay
| for that.
|
| This is clearly unethical, but maybe not illegal.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| He often did pay for that. That's the point of the 10%
| restocking fee.
| selykg wrote:
| Your friend was treating a return policy as a rental
| policy. I don't think that's in the spirit of a return
| policy.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Are we going to blame people for not buying WinRaR
| licenses next? These are businesses, they offer the
| policy for a variety of reasons, I am free to use them
| within the terms; it sounds a bit out there to categorise
| returning a product in a "no questions asked return"
| policy as unethical unless I actively sabotaged the
| product or did anything other than use it and give it
| back.
| AlisdairO wrote:
| I find it unethical because the net effect is that
| companies stop offering friendly return policies. When
| people treat return policies by the letter of the
| agreement rather than by its spirit, they create a world
| where companies won't offer relaxed return policies, and
| therefore make the world a bit worse for everyone else.
|
| It's not illegal to use the agreement in this way, and I
| would never try to make it so. But I would absolutely
| look down on someone for behaving this way.
| selykg wrote:
| Not that you don't make a point with this, I do have to
| say that Winrar hasn't changed how they handle their
| licensing/usage to combat this. I suspect they're "okay"
| with it so to speak as a result.
|
| The fact that businesses change their policies as a
| result of abuse should tell you whether these actions are
| within the spirit of what they intended or whether it's
| outside of it.
| blackearl wrote:
| You shouldn't be angry that Apple is changing the terms
| then.
| cblackthornekc wrote:
| No, that isn't the point of that at all. 10% isn't so you
| can use a card and then give it back. 10% is so the staff
| can package it up, send it back to the manufacturer so
| they can resell it. Or so they can mark it as
| "refurbished" and recoup some of the lost value of a new
| card.
| juancb wrote:
| There you go "some" of the value. So either the store or
| the manufacturer eats the rest of the lost value, in
| either case the person using the policy at face value is
| taking value. In a lot of cases taking value would be
| stealing, but this is one of those cases where there's
| only a social contract and a set of norms that guard it
| and it's not seen as such. Think of a complementary
| offering of some kind based on an honor system, some
| treat or trinket in a bowl. Sure you can take just one or
| take them all. If you take them all you can argue that
| they're free but you're still a that guy that helps bring
| about a tragedy of the commons.
|
| Culturally in the states and Latin America that makes you
| jerk and people will hate you for it. So there is social
| pressure in place to help regulate those events, but it
| may not always be the case everywhere.
| juancb wrote:
| The 10% restocking fee is a compromise between offerring
| a permissive return policy that gets abused and none at
| all. I have always understood it to be a deterrent and
| not the exact amount that must be recouped in order to
| make returns net zero loss events.
| ohazi wrote:
| This disconnect is precisely why you can get a refund in
| the US but not in India.
|
| There's the "letter of the policy" interpretation, where
| anything the text of the policy doesn't explicitly forbid
| is A-Okay. And then there's the "socially acceptable
| norms" interpretation, where you're only supposed to ask
| for refunds when a product is actually defective, and if
| you go any further than that, society and HN comments
| will shame you for it.
|
| In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people
| for anything and everything, so companies can have
| generous policies and lean on the social norms
| interpretation to keep people in check. India is more of
| a free-for-all, so companies feel the need to spell
| everything out.
| mavelikara wrote:
| > In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people
| for anything and everything, so companies can have
| generous policies and lean on the social norms
| interpretation to keep people in check.
|
| Consumers in US can buy a product without the anxiety of
| not having read the fine print, knowing that the seller
| will honor the return policy. Sellers also end up selling
| more because most buyers like the product they buy.
| Society wins overall.
|
| I have lived both in India and US, about two decades each
| at both places.
| ohazi wrote:
| Oh I agree, this is definitely a tragedy-of-the-commons
| situation. I was mostly joking about the shaming bit
| because of all the sibling comments.
| mavelikara wrote:
| I think the calling out is justified. Having lived in
| India, it is a country filled with these Smart Alecks who
| ruin it for everyone. I find it the duty of the general
| public to call these out, if we want to keep good things.
| segmondy wrote:
| Yes, he was abusing it. The refund policy is for if you're
| really unsatisfied with the product. If you buy a product
| with the intent to return it for refund, that's abuse.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Again, why? It's tautology to say "That's abuse because
| it's abuse." The business offers a policy. You're simply
| using it.
|
| We can agree to disagree, but it's not X just because
| someone says it is.
| ahepp wrote:
| How is what they said in any way circular or a tautology?
|
| >If you buy a product with the intent to return it for
| refund, that's abuse.
| [deleted]
| praxulus wrote:
| I want to participate in a market where businesses
| typically offer refunds. When too many people use refund
| policies in that way, businesses stop offering them. That
| makes things worse for me, so I wish they wouldn't do
| that.
|
| I don't know if that rises to definition of abuse, but
| that's why I don't want people to use refunds that way.
| bootlooped wrote:
| Your position seems to be that if it's legal and within
| the technical guidelines, then it's not abuse. If so then
| what is abuse?
|
| I think the issue is people operating in bad faith. I
| recall a story about people buying big TVs before the
| super bowl then returning them the next week. My opinion
| is that's abusing a company's generous return policy. The
| people doing that never intended to buy. The company had
| the policy to give customers more confidence in their
| purchases, not to run a free TV rental business.
|
| There's a saying "this is why we can't have nice things".
| If people constantly push leniency or generosity to the
| limits, they get taken away, and it's a net loss to
| everybody else.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Finally, a logical comment. Thank you.
|
| I counter with the following observation: You note that a
| return policy exists so that customers can use it. Under
| what conditions are you allowed to use it and it _not_ be
| abuse?
|
| Being able to return the product is often why customers
| buy something. How many times have you considered the
| return policy before buying? You can decide to return it
| for any reason you like: whether you dislike the product,
| whether you ran out of money and needed a refund, or for
| no reason at all.
|
| If it's a problem, the business will change the policy,
| just as Apple did here.
| cblackthornekc wrote:
| > Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it
| not be abuse?
|
| If your plan wasn't to return it from the start, then it
| isn't abuse. This seems pretty simple. In your original
| example your "friend" was planning on using GPUs to test
| and then return them. At no point was he planning on
| keeping this purchase.
|
| Now, I will say if you're friend bought 3 GPU's with the
| plan to keep one and returned two I would say that's not
| abuse, but there are certainly better ways to try before
| you buy.
| greggman3 wrote:
| It's simple to me. The policy is based on "good faith"
| that people won't lie and abuse the return policy as a
| free rental.
|
| You claim it's okay to follow the letter of the policy
| and abuse it. When too many people do that the policy is
| removed.
|
| Result: You live in a culture where returns are
| disallowed.
|
| Me, I'd prefer to live in a culture where returns are
| allowed. That only happens when people don't abuse the
| return policy. The fact that Apple changed their policy
| because people abused it is a loss for everyone that had
| no intention of abusing it. It's even a loss for those
| who were abusing it if they ever have a legit reason to
| want to return something.
|
| There are a many many policies that only really work on
| social norms. Living in a society that respects those
| norms is "almost" always a nicer society to live in.
| jhauris wrote:
| There is a definite benefit to giving good faith
| customers confidence in their ability to return something
| if they aren't satisfied with it. If the majority of
| customers are not acting in good faith (meaning never
| intend to keep the item) that position becomes untenable
| for the business and as you state the terms are changed.
| The alternative is to drastically increase the price so
| that customers who actually want to purchase it can
| subsidize those that don't.
|
| I'm not sure whether there's an ethical problem with
| acting in that way, but it resembles a "tragedy of the
| commons" situation. Or, "this is why we can't have nice
| things".
| rlkf wrote:
| > Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it
| not be abuse?
|
| I'll give you an example, which is also a true story: I
| bought a 4K TV that could also run Android apps. But,
| while regular TV broadcasts displayed in 4K, the Android
| apps were limited to HD. This, of course were never
| mentioned in any of their marketing material. Did return,
| and did get a refund, but if it had worked as I thought
| it did, I would have kept it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _The business offers a policy. You 're simply using
| it._
|
| There is the spirit and the letter of an agreement. The
| relative importance of these in commercial contexts
| varies from culture to culture. (The term of art is high
| trust versus low trust societies.) Abuse (versus breach)
| involves complying with the letter of an agreement while
| violating its spirit. As you observe, this is subjective.
|
| Fundamentally, if return policies are treated by
| customers as a return versus rental, terms can be more
| generous. If they are abused, the terms must be stricter.
| Veen wrote:
| The consquence of everyone "simply using" returns
| policies in that way is businesses having much more
| restrictive returns policies, as we see in India. Most of
| us don't want that.
| smarttoi wrote:
| That is fucking abuse. Wtf
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I totally believe this. Here in the states Costco's refund
| policy is like magic. If you buy something that is horrible,
| you can return it hassle free. I buy almost exclusively from
| costco just because of this policy. Zero stress.
|
| But something like this would not work in Bolivia (where I'm
| from), people would abuse the shit out of it. within a week the
| policy would be gone, no doubt.
| Cerium wrote:
| One of my friends works at Costco. He says that before the
| holidays they sell a lot of furniture and after the holidays
| they see a lot of furniture returns.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I've seen shameless bastards return christmas trees in
| january lol - but still as a whole the majority of people
| in the states don't abuse policies like that.
| bootlooped wrote:
| Is the implication that people are buying extra furniture
| for having family or other guests over, with the intent of
| returning it after the guests leave?
| Cerium wrote:
| I guess so? I'm not sure if the intent is there or if
| they realize that the holidays cost too much and need to
| return some.
| shultays wrote:
| them buying fancier furniture to impress their guests
| would be my guess but yours is very likely as well
| egeozcan wrote:
| But wouldn't that be expected? More people buying (because
| they think they need it, as they're going to cook a lot),
| would mean, even if the return percentage is the same, more
| people returning.
|
| Add to that the people who realize what a waste of an
| investment that was after the holiday spree is over, you
| can explain it a bit more.
|
| But of course, it's impossible to tell surely without data.
|
| Going back to gut feelings: Does he see suspicious
| behavior? Weird reasons for returning?
| Cerium wrote:
| He does not work the returns desk, he is primarily a
| forklift driver. I find it interesting to hear about the
| seasonal variations though.
|
| A couple random things - the first stack of shelves that
| face the front of the store are managed to give a good
| impression. They always keep those shelves full of
| pallets and try to have a lot of only a few items to give
| a clean look. If the warehouse has empty space they try
| to keep it so you can't see from the center of the store.
| nucleardog wrote:
| The Costco I worked at had a lady that came in every
| holiday season and bought over $10k of holiday
| decorations. Like clockwork she'd be back in January to
| return it all, nearly all of it having been opened and
| used. She'd been doing this for almost a decade by the
| time I started working there.
|
| It's gonna be impossible to concretely discern intent
| from the data you could get, but it's pretty obvious
| there's _some_ abuse. The only question is where you draw
| the line on abuse and how much.
|
| January at our store was a rush of returns of opened and
| used Christmas decorations because "I decided I don't
| want it anymore." Often times from people that had done
| the same thing year after year. We'll never know what
| those people really intended when they bought it in the
| fall, but you'd have to be pretty damn charitable to
| assume the best of intent in all the cases. Especially
| when it was people doing it multiple years in a row.
| ghaff wrote:
| A number of outdoor gear stores like REI and (sorta) LL
| Bean have discontinued lifetime returns during the past
| few years. I've known people who used policies as sort of
| a lifetime subscription to, say, a rain jacket. I'm not
| sure the reason the policies eventually changed.
|
| I assume it's some combination of degraded quality as
| most stuff is made in the same Asian factories and an
| increasingly widespread attitude that it's OK to take
| anything that isn't nailed down.
| akamia wrote:
| This was also really common with TVs during the Super Bowl.
| People would come in and buy the biggest TV they could get,
| have their Super Bowl party and then return the TV.
| wrs wrote:
| That why the Costco policy no longer applies to
| electronics (they're time-limited now). But it's at
| manager discretion, so if you seem to have a genuine
| problem they'll still take something back after the
| limit.
| nucleardog wrote:
| That was less about the Superbowl returns (the return
| window on electronics is 90 days, you can easily get a
| TV, have a Superbowl party, and return it still).
|
| It's more the depreciation and how quickly electronics
| evolve. People were using the returns as a free lifetime
| of upgrades.
|
| One particularly stark example when I worked there a long
| time ago was someone who wanted to upgrade their old
| projection TV.
|
| So four years after they bought it they brought it in and
| returned it. They got about $4k back. They walked out on
| the floor, picked up a brand new LCD TV for $2k and
| almost half a decade after their original purchase they
| walked out with a brand new, upgraded TV and $2k in their
| pocket.
|
| You can imagine how this can be abused with most
| electronics that Costco sells. Imagine going in and
| getting a brand new upgraded laptop every 2-3 years for
| the rest of your life after a single couple thousand
| dollar purchase.
| gumby wrote:
| > With many buying latest smartphones, and returning them after
| a week after trying them "[1]
|
| That alone is not only OK but was recommended recently in the
| USA.
|
| Specifically, during COVID the Apple retail shops were shut so
| you couldn't compare devices when shopping. I bought my GF a
| regular and max sized iPhone and she took a week to decide
| which one she wanted. We sent the other one back and had a
| refund before the credit card bill was even due, so as far as
| my bank account was concerned I really did only pay for one. In
| normal times we would have been unlikely to have bothered with
| this (although with something as personal as a phone...)
|
| I can imagine that this only scales to a certain percentage of
| transactions though.
| inapis wrote:
| Starting this year, you can get AppleCare+ which covers
| accidental damage in India. The normal AppleCare is
| discontinued.
| juancb wrote:
| So what's the story behind the return abuse in India?
| gambiting wrote:
| I suspect it's the same story I heard in Poland - it's
| basically impossible to buy insurance against loss of mobile
| phone, because apparently people abused it too much. You can
| still get insurance against theft or damage, but not for
| loss. It was just too easy for people to say "yeah, I lost
| the phone, please send a new one thanks".
|
| But I mean, those policies exist elsewhere, so I don't know
| what specifically makes Polish customers more prone to
| abusing those policies. I suspect it's the relative cost of a
| phone vs income.
| axaxs wrote:
| I'm just an observer of forums and whatnot, and not Indian,
| but have a couple guesses.
|
| 1 - People buying a handful of phones and comparing them,
| then returning all but the one they decide to keep.
|
| 2 - Semi related, one of the ten thousand phone comparison
| Youtuber channels.
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| No average Indian asking for return doesn't have YouTube
| review channel.
| r-bar wrote:
| I think #1 is a signal of a failure in the online retail
| space. As a customer other than reading the (often gamed)
| reviews on amazon and watching youtube reviewers how do you
| know what to buy? Buying a bunch of options and returning
| them starts to look like a legitimate strategy. For some
| products (for me it tends to be laptops) you really do not
| know if you like it until you have your hands on the
| physical product.
| axaxs wrote:
| I agree. I myself have noticed how bad all reviews have
| gotten. For example, I bought an S20 FE last year, and it
| had a horrible touch screen. Almost EVERYONE who bought
| one said the same thing and complained. I can think of
| zero 'reviewers' who even mentioned it. I would be
| supremely angry if it were a $1200 device with no return
| policy.
|
| I don't really know what the solution is. I think a phone
| rental business could spring up. Charge $10/day or
| something to rent a high end phone to folks to see how
| they like it.
| rchaud wrote:
| Most of the tech review channels are focused on getting
| views, sponsors and free product samples. Unsurprisingly
| the videos increasingly resemble infomercials, focused
| more on lifestyle and aesthetics than whether or not the
| product is actually worth buying.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Back in the day, this is what electronics shops were used
| for... go to Circuit City/Best Buy/Your Telephone
| Company's store and check out the phones.
| happymellon wrote:
| Most phone shops have only had dummy phones for as long
| as I can remember.
| officeplant wrote:
| Bestbuy still has mostly functional phones. I recently
| went by my local one to play with a Pixel 4A before
| buying it there unlocked. When I worked at Radioshack
| (2010-2013) we had mostly dummy phones except for the
| companies that were desperate enough to have "dumb" demo
| phones that felt like a real phone but just played a
| looped video on the screen.
|
| My guess is that Bestbuy has more money so they can
| afford the rare demo phone getting stolen somehow.
| Funnily enough when I worked at Radioshack we often had
| people steal the fake phones that just played a video
| loop. Someone even tried to return a fake phone once
| saying that we sold them a broken device.
| carstenhag wrote:
| 10-20EUR refund fees?
| officeplant wrote:
| Bestbuy just charges a 15% restocking fee on all phones
| returns now if you opened the box. As someone who often
| has buyers remorse or didn't get an adequate experience
| in store first I'm completely fine with that.
| axaxs wrote:
| I considered it, but I think an open box item is worth
| considerably less.
|
| Think of it - if you are spending $1200 on an item, would
| you want to save $20 on it to get one that who knows who
| had for who knows how long? I sure wouldn't. You'd
| probably need to go at least $100 lower before it becomes
| somewhat appealing.
| sss111 wrote:
| AppleCare+ covered two incidents of Theft, Loss and
| accidents.
|
| Third party resellers essentially activated an iphone and
| marked it as lost. Then, after getting a new replacement
| iPhone from Apple, they would go on and sell it to customers.
|
| Nowadays, you can only get AppleCare (not the plus) in India
| which does not cover theft or accidental damage.
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| >Same goes for the country's biggest online retailers, both
| Amazon and Flipkart also switched to a replacement-only policy
| in India.
|
| On Amazon India you can still get refund based on your history
| with them.
|
| Basically trusted customers still get the "refund" option in
| their account. Just new customers and the suspecious one aren't
| given that often by default
| Y_Y wrote:
| hey
| mrits wrote:
| 20 years ago in the US I had friends in college that would shop
| for clearance items at places like Office Depot and return them
| to Walmart for full price (no receipt needed). In one situation
| there was like a $20 ancient keyboard that Walmart still had in
| their system for ~$100.
| ragazzina wrote:
| It's really strange to see that on HN when a company is paying
| only the taxes it legally has to, it's called "business
| acumen", but when a person is extracting all the value it can
| from a policy, it's "abusing the policy".
|
| I wonder if the same people hold both the opinions.
| vkou wrote:
| This is a very astute observation. There seems to be an
| assumption that only people, but not organizations can act in
| bad faith - and that deceiving the government is a virtue.
| kelnos wrote:
| Not entirely disagreeing with you, but if we want to stop
| companies from avoiding tax, we should change the tax code.
|
| Apple has gone and done the analog of that; they've changed
| the returns code.
|
| I don't see anything wrong with what Apple has done here, and
| if the US decided to tighten up the tax code, I wouldn't see
| anything wrong with that either.
|
| To your actual point, I think it's about intent and spirit.
| The holes in the tax code were put there intentionally, to
| benefit businesses. We may not like it, but that's how it is.
| Businesses aren't violating the letter or even the spirit of
| the law when they avail themselves of it.
|
| On the contrary, Apple sets their return policy based on a
| balance between good customer service and an estimate of how
| much that customer service will cost them to provide. They
| likely estimate this cost based on what they think is
| reasonable customer behavior. In this case they mis-
| estimated: apparently Indians don't behave within what they
| consider to be the spirit of that policy.
|
| Another way of looking at it: the US government estimates tax
| revenue knowing that those loopholes exist, and is fine with
| the result. There are no budget-related surprises. Apple's
| estimates for the cost of returns in India was a large
| underestimation, so they're fixing their problem.
|
| Maybe it's an overreaction to think about this as "returns
| abuse", but I don't see these two things as being the same.
| philistine wrote:
| A legislator implementing a tax code is not an all-seeing
| god able to divine all the consequences of their proposed
| law. They have an intent, sure, but to say that every
| consequence of their actions are intentional, that's too
| simplistic.
|
| The result, which is that large corporations have a tax
| rate lower than small businesses, is what is important. Do
| you want a company, as it grows bigger and spends more on
| the legal implications of its business structure, to be
| able to lower its tax rate? Do you want to incentivize
| bigger companies to have more tax agility than smaller
| ones? I don't, and I don't believe any legislator would
| hold such unpopular views.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > A legislator implementing a tax code is not an all-
| seeing god able to divine all the consequences of their
| proposed law. They have an intent, sure, but to say that
| every consequence of their actions are intentional,
| that's too simplistic.
|
| It's not like they are paid for that or anything.
| [deleted]
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > I wonder if the same people hold both the opinions.
|
| I suspect there are a lot of business owners on HN. Current,
| future or past. So it's definitely possible.
| sneak wrote:
| store courtesies != tax law.
|
| If you break store policy, they don't send armed people to
| your house to fix the glitch.
|
| You also seem to be comparing tax minimization (as distinct
| from tax fraud) with warranty/return fraud.
| geodel wrote:
| I see it other way around. When company does legal tax saving
| , they are morally bankrupt and monsters. When individuals
| try to rip off company due to some mistake or even better
| something like pirady then it is usually "what other choice
| do people have?". If companies do not give them for cheap,
| they will have to pirate.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Seems like reporting a phone as lost without losing it would
| be the equivalent of lying about income, which is generally
| recognized as tax fraud, not business acumen.
| utxaa wrote:
| so stop buying apple. that'll light a match in the right place.
| nottorp wrote:
| Hmm well, I once worked for some people doing an automatic facial
| recognition system. It wasn't for law enforcement or stuff like
| that.
|
| The first application that they mentioned was preventing
| insurance fraud in India...
| fireeyed wrote:
| A friend of mine from India and I were walking into a Barnes and
| Noble store. He stops outside the door points to the "for sale
| book cart" that sits outside the store and tells me if this store
| was in India, not only the books will be gone but the cart too.
| The stunning thing he tells me is its not the poor who steal but
| the customers who would come to the store to buy.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tumblewit wrote:
| So I bought a Macbook Air with M1 that I used for 3 months and
| noticed the right speaker cracking issue (apparently this is
| widespread on forums) and instead of going through the headache
| of repair service I ended up just tossing it online and buy a new
| one for <7500Rs in losses which I thought was a good deal. The
| new one has the same problem (yes I tried everything from restore
| to different audio but its not subtle and this time its left one
| wow!) so I contacted Apple to setup a return immediately. But
| nope! They are offering a replacement to me but the customer
| support is throwing policies in my face. Its insane that apple
| offers no refund for its own products.
| dkirill wrote:
| Did you buy it via official reseller? Any reasonable country
| should have laws in place that will force the company to refund
| you for the defective goods. In that case Apple' policies
| shouldn't matter
| ramraj07 wrote:
| AFAIK India doesn't have refund policies for defective goods
| that are widely applicable.
|
| What OP must clarify though is that apples authorised
| resellers in India do actually perform a good job of
| replacing defective goods under warranty, which makes getting
| extended care for apple products in India of paramount
| importance. Outside of warranty you are so screwed!
| tumblewit wrote:
| I don't know about your experience but I have been buying
| Apple products here for more than a decade and the
| authorized service centers only replace iPhones and iPads
| (and they now repair iPhones) while macs are repair only.
| But the so called engineers are not well trained and I did
| have my MBP once that went bad thanks to the poor job they
| had done. If apple had an official service center I would
| not bother replacing or returning and just get it repaired
| since any repair comes with a 90 day warranty.
| tumblewit wrote:
| I bought both from Apple's own online store.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Aluminium metallurgy strikes back.
|
| That's why I am very hesitant to use it for mass manufactured
| goods.
|
| ME misses 1 defect showing few months later, and you get n
| hundred thousand units recall, or worse, the client asking the
| money back. For a CM it's a complete devastation.
|
| Machining is also very uneconomical unless you can contract
| high volume machining specialist, but that's impossible for
| most <1m runs.
|
| Only the biggest PC makers like Asus, and Acer can afford
| custom casting, and press forging at economical scales, but
| even they don't go for aluminium everywhere. ASUS for example
| went with stamped steel shells for some economy models.
| Nimitz14 wrote:
| Could you elaborate on this? I thought Aluminium is
| relatively easy to manipulate (and that's why it's used a
| lot)? Why wouldn't one use injection molding?
| baybal2 wrote:
| Aluminium is hard to manipulate...
|
| Fatigue, and failure modes are unpredictable for a lot of
| alloys.
|
| Machinability, and masleability is usually going in reverse
| to strength.
|
| Tempering, and annealing to counter the above add to cycle
| time, and cost.
|
| Some aluminium alloys cold flow.
|
| Aluminium is generally excellent for corrosion resistance
| against anything you have in your household, but sometimes
| it isn't.
|
| You can't weld it.
|
| Few things can stick to it.
|
| It's thermal expansion is much bigger than glass, and
| steel.
| oneplane wrote:
| That would mostly be limited by tolerances, surface finish
| and specific alloy used.
|
| When you end up with a part that needs a lot of steps and
| removes a lot of material you need a machine that is more
| complicated, more expensive and with a lower throughput
| than a machine that simply stamps parts out of a sheet, or
| shapes them through a mandrill.
|
| Casting is a whole other deal, you end up with different
| properties because the way you cast has different
| requirements than creating the raw stock. If the part or
| product you want to make can't match with the results of a
| cast part (more than just surface finish) you simply can't
| use casting (until some sort or alloy is found that
| delivers the required properties).
|
| You can obviously use other methods, i.e. metal injection,
| or sintering, or you could simply make it out of plastic.
| Or you make multiple simpler parts and interface them
| together (screws, glue, welds etc). But all of those are
| fine from the construction perspective, but not fine from
| the aesthetic perspective, and those are valid requirements
| as well.
|
| The manufacturing method generally is selected during a
| 'design for manufacture' phase, and that phase only comes
| after you have already established some parameters on the
| look, feel, and other properties of the product.
|
| If you could just make it out of concrete or a single
| injected piece of plastic and still meet all the
| requirements, they would probably do just that (as the
| process is simpler, cheaper, higher volume etc).
| AppleIsWeaknes wrote:
| Expect them to deny for 5 years and only then after many
| lawsuits you can get a fix.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| ...and only for models sold in a specific time period. The
| rest of the customers have to sue again.
| xtracto wrote:
| Aaah I see you experienced Mac ooks 2015 battery issue. Or
| Macbooks 2016,2017,2018 butterfly keyboard issue.
|
| Not sure why people buy Apple...
| dangus wrote:
| Edit: apologies, I misread the comment and the "3 months" bit.
| Apparently (TIL) India has very weak consumer protection laws.
|
| I still think you should take up Apple's offer to have it
| repaired/replaced. I guess that's your only recourse.
| pdpi wrote:
| OP sold one macbook after 3 months, bought a second one with
| the same defect, and tried to get that one serviced
| immediately. That second macbook should've been well within a
| reasonable returns policy.
| dangus wrote:
| You're right, I confused the 3 months bit.
| tumblewit wrote:
| This is correct. I got rid of the original one (I bought
| that day 1 of M1 launch so I thought it was some initial
| batch). But this one is only a day old (and more recently
| imported) and I have spent the last day doing all kinds of
| troubleshooting. I am in the process of getting a
| replacement (which they approve) but I don't expect that
| one to be problem free either (seems like a more serious
| problem like 2016 displays failing after a while).
| Nonetheless if they can accept a replacement they should
| have some policy towards a refund but there is none. I am
| waiting for their call tomorrow from some senior but I am
| not hopeful.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _I don't think any country has laws mandating that people are
| allowed to return products after owning them for 3 months._
|
| It depends on the circumstances, but in the UK and most of
| Europe, consumer rights are _much_ stronger than in some
| other parts of the world.
|
| Here in the UK, the basic rule is that the vendor who sold a
| product to a private individual is on the hook for anything
| that goes wrong -- that is, they can't just pass the buck to
| a manufacturer under warranty or some other fall guy, they
| have to deal with the problem or be held responsible. Whether
| the vendor can in turn recover any losses from the
| manufacturer or reseller who supplied them is then that
| vendor's problem, not the end customer's.
|
| Usually if a product is defective, the next step will be to
| repair, replace or refund. The legal position tends to be
| based on both sides being reasonable. For example, if you
| have a product that fails earlier than you might reasonably
| expect but still after a couple of years of use, you might
| get a refund for part of the original purchase price but you
| probably wouldn't be entitled to all of it. On the other
| hand, if a product fails in the first few months and the
| vendor can't repair or replace it, you're probably entitled
| to a full refund and there is a presumption that the product
| was defective unless the vendor can prove otherwise. In some
| cases, rights to a partial refund might last as long as 6
| years, if the product purchased might reasonably be expected
| to last that long but that one didn't.
|
| Several other shenanigans that vendors try to pull elsewhere
| also don't hold up here. You can't rely on dubious
| arbitration terms in sale contracts to override statutory
| consumer rights. A vendor also must not mislead consumers
| over their rights, for example putting up a sign saying "no
| refunds" when the buyer might have a legal right to a refund
| for a defective product. In fact, it's actually illegal for
| merchants to mislead in that kind of way, which is why you'll
| see often notices up at the tills that say something like
| "your statutory rights are not affected" to make it clear
| that they're not trying to illegally misrepresent anything
| about those rights.
|
| This is all in addition to any more generous policy a
| merchant might voluntarily offer or any warranty a
| manufacturer might offer on its products regardless of where
| someone buys them.
| [deleted]
| Grustaf wrote:
| I think it's reasonable to expect a replacement product, but
| why should you be able to return it for cash? You already made
| the decision to buy one, I don't think it's Apple's
| responsibility if you change your mind.
| domano wrote:
| For example here in germany it is mandated by law that you
| have 2 weeks grace period to get your cash back, no questions
| asked.
| Grustaf wrote:
| Yes, but in this case 3 months had passed.
| monksy wrote:
| You received a defective product. Why would you be expected
| to keep a relationship with a party that didn't meet the
| expectations from the get go?
| Grustaf wrote:
| You made the decision to buy a product. You got a defective
| one and they offered you a replacement. With the
| replacement you will be exactly where you set out to be.
| With less money, and with a working product.
|
| Even in Sweden, consumer law paradise, I'm pretty sure you
| can't ask for your money back.
| Majestic121 wrote:
| He made the decision to buy one that works, if there's a flaw
| it's perfectly reasonable to be reimbursed.
|
| Most countries also have laws to give consumers a time period
| where they can return whatever they bought, no questions
| asked (as long as the product is in good condition)
| Grustaf wrote:
| I'm saying he should get a new one that works. The question
| is why should he be able to return it for cash?
| fastball wrote:
| Yes but it worked when he bought it.
|
| So the product was not, in fact, in good condition when he
| wanted to return it.
| Majestic121 wrote:
| Yes, but that's a hidden defect.
|
| If I sell you a TV, pretending that it was working
| perfectly when I know for a fact that there's a component
| in it that has 90% chances of blowing up in the next
| month, you'd be perfectly right to complain and expect me
| to pay you back your money after your TV exploded.
| fastball wrote:
| I don't think Apple knew for a fact that the speaker was
| defective.
| nightcracker wrote:
| If you know a product is faulty, why did you choose to buy
| another one?
| eptcyka wrote:
| In vain hopes its a bad apple and not the whole harvest?
| chris37879 wrote:
| I see what you did there.
| tumblewit wrote:
| This was literally the case. But it seems like its not
| Apple season yet.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| They thought the specific _unit_ was faulty, not the _model_
| and its design.
| systemBuilder wrote:
| In the USA we have a concept of a warrant of merchantability.
| This implies that if you buy a product that is defective the
| manufacturer must take it back within a short period usually 30
| days or less. No exceptions.
|
| With cars it is slightly different most states have something
| called a "lemon law." If there are more than three repair
| attempts in the first 6 months for the same issue and the
| problem is still not fixed then the manufacturer must offer a
| full refund.
| tumblewit wrote:
| I did return an iPhone when I was in US. It was really easy
| just walk in and return it for a full refund or credit. I
| ended up buying a 128gb one instead of 32gb because the
| experience was great. But this is insane that I can't return
| something from Apple's own store for a refund.
| tumblewit wrote:
| This was back when the 32gb iPhone 7 was much slower than
| the 128Gb one. But that was more of a performance problem
| this is straight up problematic.
| vondur wrote:
| Is there some sort of law in India that allows this? Seems pretty
| bad to me.
| tumblewit wrote:
| No. Amazon offers a return for it's products if they are
| defective the second time. Basically you get a replacement if
| its good then great keep it but if it has a problem as well
| then you get a full refund on return. Apple has no such policy.
| You buy it they can offer a replacement. But customer support
| will tell you its policy for no refund. No law afaik.
| fnord77 wrote:
| Strong consumer protection laws are good checks and balances
| against corporations.
| yrral wrote:
| Why is this the case? Is there some societal expectation? I know
| that eg: american grocery stores are much more accepting of
| returns for any reason vs european ones in general.
| teachingassist wrote:
| Does Apple offer more than the legal minimum in other
| countries?
|
| I'm curious, I don't know, but in my experience buying Apple
| products in several countries, they offer the legal minimum
| nicely, without resistance (which is already better than many
| corporations), but generally not more than that.
|
| If the legal after-sales minimum is nothing, then that's what
| I'd expect Apple to offer.
| greenshackle2 wrote:
| Do most retailers? I haven't researched it or anything but my
| guess is that most retailers just offer the legal minimum,
| unless they explicitly have a generous return policy as a
| differentiating factor (Costco?).
| coredog64 wrote:
| Costco walked back their return policy for many technology
| products.
| [deleted]
| xvolter wrote:
| I don't think most stores would offer returns, except it is
| often forced on them buy credit card companies to protect
| their consumers.
|
| American Express, Visa, and Mastercard all have some kind of
| requirement that the merchant allows returns (usually 14 days
| minimum). Otherwise the consumer can file a chargeback and
| the resolution will go to the consumer in most situations.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I think good return policies is good for business IF the
| business is operating in a society that generally behaves
| ethically on that matter.
|
| If the majority of returns are good faith, just swallow them
| and keep everything moving smoothly with happy customers.
|
| If you have a critical mass of customers who disregard right
| vs. wrong and just see a mark to be exploited, you're pretty
| much forced to behave adversarially, and everyone loses.
| coredog64 wrote:
| Part of that is whether you live in a high trust or low trust
| society.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm fascinated by the granularity of "society" in this
| case. The amount of trust in Toronto vs. Waterloo vs. where
| I am now (rural) is quite stark in a number of cases.
| vishnugupta wrote:
| This is right on the money.
|
| I worked at a startup catering to Indian consumers. It was a
| typical transactional product coupled with offers. The time
| and energy we spent on fighting different kinds of abuse was
| outright insane. The fraudsters would come up with a new
| trick each week to abuse offers. No matter what check we
| placed (based on e-mail, phone number, IP etc., etc.,) they
| would beat it.
|
| Based on my experience I can think of a few contributing
| factors.
|
| 1. Indian population. Lot of businesses underestimate this.
| They are used to reason in terms of %. But when you have a
| population of 1300 the % could still be within a threshold
| but absolute number would be larger than entire nations.
|
| 2. Outright incompetent cyber policing. The Indian consumers
| getting access to cheaper smartphone and internet _exploded_
| in the 2nd half of last decade. Naturally the country 's
| police have just been unable to scale up to deal with new age
| crimes.
|
| 3. Poverty. It's super lucrative for young poor people to
| take advantage of arbitrage opportunities and abuse goodwill
| policies. The return policy is a good example. E-commerce
| companies in India are riddled with fraudulent return of
| goods. The modus operandi is simple enough. Order a smart
| phone, return a faulty/old one of the same model, sell the
| new one. Profit.
|
| 4. Extreme levels of corruption and vast geography. There are
| some well known cybercrime hotspot PIN codes but chasing the
| fraudsters is mostly futile. The police are mostly lethargic
| and more often than not are happy to work _with_ the
| criminals to collect a weekly payment. It 's more lucrative
| that way, why kill the golden goose?
|
| 5. Cheap internet, cheaper SIM connection. The country is
| _awash_ with cheap bandwidth and SIM connection. To an extent
| you 'll find new SIM packets lying on the sidewalk. This
| makes it extremely hard to tackle online frauds.
| dmortin wrote:
| > Order a smart phone, return a faulty/old one of the same
| model, sell the new one. Profit.
|
| Don't sellers there record the serial number of phones? I
| thought it was routine everywhere.
|
| If the serial number is recorded for the transaction then
| they can't just send back any other phone with a different
| serial number.
| vishnugupta wrote:
| It's been plugged. Though I used smartphone as an example
| it happens on all kinds of products. High-end fashion
| clothing, toiletries, jewelry, and so on. Last I heard
| the return/refund fraud was under control. But its only a
| matter of time a new angle of attack is found.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| I think you'll find that European consumer rights laws leave
| the US in the dust. It's much easier to refund/return stuff
| over here because almost everything has a better warranty than
| the USA.
| slver wrote:
| There is societal expectation. Frankly no one wants opened/used
| products, so you know those will be sold at significant
| discount, or refurbished, or thrown away. No business accepts
| that unless they HAVE to.
| xvolter wrote:
| No one wants used products for "new" prices, but plenty of
| people would be willing to buy open-box items at discounted
| prices. It's a huge thing for appliances.
|
| In most situations, however, things are simply repackaged and
| sold as new. Clothing, for example, is commonly returned;
| then hopefully re-washed before selling again as new. In most
| situations this applies to electronics as well, although
| electronics can be different. There are stories out there of
| people buying new SD cards that had photos on them. Most
| companies have a return center that processes returns,
| inspects them, resets them, and repackages them to be sold
| again as new.
|
| Exceptions are when returns are sent to stores... like Amazon
| or Best Buy handle returns differently than returns going
| back to the manufacturer.
| drfuchs wrote:
| In the USA, "simply repackaged and sold as new" is illegal
| for all products, even if the first purchaser hadn't even
| opened the box. You have to sell it as "refurbished" or
| some such.
| dheera wrote:
| "Frankly no one wants opened/used products"
|
| Um ... When I buy for myself I look for open box products all
| the time. Steep discounts (sometimes 25% or more) are awesome
| for something that is essentially new. I don't give a shit
| about the unboxing experience unless it's a gift for someone
| else.
| turtlebits wrote:
| This isn't surprising, its just consumer culture in other
| countries. I remember buying computer components in Taiwan, and
| having the merchant open the box and testing it in front of me as
| there were refunds and to prove I wasn't getting a fake product.
| tobr wrote:
| > Please see our Sales Terms and Conditions for full policies.
|
| Which of course you can't be bothered to link?
| bashy wrote:
| "Sales Policy" at very bottom of footer.
| kjrose wrote:
| Can anyone tell me if this is due to cultural differences where
| abusing a refund policy is common place and accepted, so having
| something that is generally intended as a "good faith" policy
| simply doesn't work?
|
| Or is this that there are small groups of very organized
| individuals abusing it and ruining it for the rest of the
| country?
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| I don't think anyone getting such returns/refunds approved is
| getting accolades by their family members or friends. Usually
| such people don't tell anyone about it and if they are smart
| better they keep quite.
|
| So it's not about culture, just that it's worth it here in
| India because most people aren't making $30 an hour here so lot
| of pitty scam schemes are profitable for them.
| kjrose wrote:
| Oh, I don't mean like "you get accolades", but more of a,
| everyone is doing it, so why not me?
| kjrose wrote:
| I appreciate the honest response though. I always am
| curious about what the situation is on the ground for
| decisions like this.
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| Those who do bad things can always justify to themselves
| "everyone is doing it" even if the only evidence they've
| is a newspaper report of a person doing it in their
| country. I personally frequently manage accounts of my
| family members including my Dad's and girlfriends
| account, they aren't doing it infact my dad has kept a
| lot of crappy things he received because he didn't have
| time to return and he's a busy banker, his time value is
| more than all these products etc...very few people in the
| country actually get paid enough to make these tactics
| not worth it for them, but a lot of people are god
| fearing and honest even if they are poor.
| hi41 wrote:
| I am an Indian. I can attest that a lot indians are extremely
| corrupt and will abuse the system as as possible for their own
| benefit. I am so ashamed of being an indian. Indians are the
| people who don't put the shopping cart back in its place and just
| leave it in the parking lot and the rest of the people can't park
| their cars. They unload the cart into car and don't bother that
| traffic is backing up.
| pow_pp_-1_v wrote:
| There are self-centered people from all countries.
|
| I used to feel good/bad depending on what people from my
| country/region/group etc. do. But it's so silly. Why do I care
| what another person does - whom I don't even know? It's the
| same with long lost ancestors.
|
| So now a days I notice such thoughts quickly and remember that
| it's a silly heuristic that my brain uses and I should ignore
| it.
| hi41 wrote:
| Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I am not unaware of my
| first impulse towards anger. I have hurt a lot of people with
| my angry outbursts. Some of them are in their after lives and
| I hope my sorry reaches them.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I've always been kind of an outcast, so it's always been my
| policy to worry about myself and let others take care of
| themselves.
|
| As a result, I think my moral compass is quite a bit stricter
| than most people. I definitely have people telling me I'm
| being too hard on myself.
|
| But I don't turn that compass on others. They have to make
| their own choices, and live with the consequences, both
| internal and external.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| If it's of any comfort, there are people who specialize in this
| in the United States as well. Retailers that still offers
| "receiptless returns" now requires a photo ID so that they can
| ensure you aren't playing fraud games with them, and some will
| openly deny returns to certain customers if shadowy reputation
| services that no one knows exist deem it too high risk.
| kburman wrote:
| Is this a troll?
| hi41 wrote:
| No, I am not. I grew up in Mumbai and emigrated to USA. Those
| were my genuine feelings.
| kburman wrote:
| There's whole category of user like this
| https://old.reddit.com/r/canconfirmiamindian/
|
| That's why I asked but I think you're rage is legit as this
| is the sad relatiy of society right now.
| sirpunch wrote:
| This subreddit is gold. Thanks for sharing.
| wccrawford wrote:
| As a non-Indian, my impression (after hearing something
| like that multiple times about Indians) is that people in
| India may be raised to be more apt to over-use a system
| (and even abuse it), but it's not unique to them. Every
| country has people who do it _far_ too much, and everyone
| does it to some extent.
|
| So don't feel so bad.
|
| Also, these kinds of things are usually a trade off. Your
| culture has a lot of beautiful things that are unique to
| it, too. No culture is perfect, and pretty much everyone is
| just trying to get by.
|
| IMO, be the best you that you can be, enjoy the beauty of
| life, and don't feel responsible for others.
| hi41 wrote:
| Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I am not unaware of
| my first impulse towards anger. I have hurt a lot of
| people with my angry outbursts. Some of them are in their
| after lives and I hope my sorry reaches them.
|
| I was also drunk when I wrote my original message. I have
| been drinking since 8 am since my wife left for work. I
| also need to get my drinking problem in order.
| macd wrote:
| Good luck! You know what they say, admitting you have a
| problem is the first step.
| sf_rob wrote:
| Please don't be ashamed of your ethnicity/race/geography. You
| are an individual and ought to be treated by yourself and
| others as such. All groups have their cultural and historical
| baggage. I say this as someone who had quite a bad experience
| on work trips to India haha.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| I was at the Pike Place Market Starbucks in Seattle and picked up
| a mug special to that shop for my (native Italian) wife. I took
| it home in DC and found it had a hairline fracture. No problem, I
| told her, and promptly called the Pike Place Market Starbucks and
| explained the situation. They immediately mailed me a new one at
| no cost and apologized.
|
| She remarked that this would NEVER have happened in Italy: no
| shop would ship something like that, as it would be ripe for
| abuse. And she's right, there is a big difference in the culture
| of trust which makes such a thing possible in the USA.
| mattl wrote:
| Games Workshop, the miniature manufacturer is like this. The
| few times I've had an issue with something from them -- mostly
| missing pieces -- they've shipped me a replacement entire kit,
| usually overnight at no cost to me.
| bakedbeanz wrote:
| It makes sense for them to want to keep their customers
| happy, considering how goddamn expensive those little bits of
| plastic are
| gnrlst wrote:
| I have to say Games Workshop and Starbucks are two easy
| examples, and say nothing about the underlying system of
| trust in a country.
|
| Games Workshop: a piece costs near nothing to them. It's just
| a piece of plastic. Makes a ton of economic sense to just
| replace it and keep customers coming back to buy more
| profitable plastic.
|
| Starbucks: are a huge multinational that operate a
| sophisticated logistics network so shipping an item out is
| less than a thousandth of a rounding error in their daily P&L
| both in terms of money and time.
|
| The real places to call out / praise are small independent
| shops where a single item purchased (or returned) could swing
| the daily revenue / profit one way or another.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-15 23:02 UTC)