So I took a chance....and got burned (or scratched).

[anony_mouse]

Apple sells Apple Care Plus to its customers who want it. Why would do that? I highly doubt it’s out of the kindness of its heart. Since Apple is a business, it’s safe to say that it saw a chance for it to make more money by offering Apple Care Plus.

Think about it. Let’s say that one million people spent $129 on Apple Care Plus. That’s equates to 129 million dollars. A majority of the people in this example will more than likely buy a protective case for their device and others will also purchase a screen protector. Even if 10% of those people damaged their device and got it replaced with Apple Care Plus, they still have to fork over $29 for screen repair and $99 for a replacement device.

100,000 people (10% of a million) would pay Apple a total of 2.9 million dollars if they all needed screen repairs. Those same people would pay Apple a total of 9.9 million dollars if they all needed a replacement device. That’s additional money paid to Apple on top of the 129 million that’s already been paid to it.

Here’s the kicker. I will argue that 80% of the aforementioned million people are on an installment plan either with Apple or their wireless carrier. In other words, they don’t even own the phone outright yet.

You said that “Someone has to pay for the people who deliberately drop their phones and get them replaced under Apple Care Plus...”

It looks to me that the debt has long been paid.

Now it's me who doesn't get your point. Think about it this way. If you buy Apple Care Plus, your money goes into a pot. Out of that pot comes the money to cover the people who take Andrew Clark1's advice and drop their phones so they can get a new one. Out of that pot comes the repairs for people who break their phone every year. Out of that pot comes the money to fix the screens of the people who keep their phones in the same pocket as their keys. Out of that pot probably comes some sales commission for the person who sold you the insurance. And at the end of the day, there is probably some money left in the pot for Apple to call profit (especially considering that people who buy this insurance still have to pay some of the costs!).

If, like me, you have never significantly damaged a phone, you will have been paying into the pot, and subsiding all the people above, without getting anything back. I would now have put more than enough money into the pot to buy a new iPhone 10, and I could do so in case I do break my new phone on the day I buy it and still be well ahead of the game. For me and people like me, it's almost certainly better not to buy Apple Care Plus or similar insurance products. Why would I pay for new phones for the people who take Andrew Clark1's advice?

I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that Apple Care Plus should be free, given how much money people are already spending on Apple's products? If you are saying that, I agree that it's an interesting idea and I hope Apple will give it serious consideration.

 

[Rob Phillips]

Now it's me who doesn't get your point. Think about it this way. If you buy Apple Care Plus, your money goes into a pot. Out of that pot comes the money to cover the people who take Andrew Clark1's advice and drop their phones so they can get a new one. Out of that pot comes the repairs for people who break their phone every year. Out of that pot comes the money to fix the screens of the people who keep their phones in the same pocket as their keys. Out of that pot probably comes some sales commission for the person who sold you the insurance. And at the end of the day, there is probably some money left in the pot for Apple to call profit (especially considering that people who buy this insurance still have to pay some of the costs!).

If, like me, you have never significantly damaged a phone, you will have been paying into the pot, and subsiding all the people above, without getting anything back. I would now have put more than enough money into the pot to buy a new iPhone 10, and I could do so in case I do break my new phone on the day I buy it and still be well ahead of the game. For me and people like me, it's almost certainly better not to buy Apple Care Plus or similar insurance products. Why would I pay for new phones for the people who take Andrew Clark1's advice?

I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that Apple Care Plus should be free, given how much money people are already spending on Apple's products? If you are saying that, I agree that it's an interesting idea and I hope Apple will give it serious consideration.

I see your point but who really cares who takes money out of the pot? It’s not like if 10 million users all decided to smash their phones up on the same day Apple would demand more money from me or cancel my service agreement. I pay a fixed dollar amount for AppleCare+ on my own accord. All that matters to me is if I have an issue with my iPhone it gets resolved.
All it comes down to is whether or not AppleCare+ is worth the cost for extra coverage and piece of mind. For me it is; for you it’s not. I’m certainly not going to let the actions of others dictate what I spend my money on.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Now it's me who doesn't get your point. Think about it this way. If you buy Apple Care Plus, your money goes into a pot. Out of that pot comes the money to cover the people who take Andrew Clark1's advice and drop their phones so they can get a new one. Out of that pot comes the repairs for people who break their phone every year. Out of that pot comes the money to fix the screens of the people who keep their phones in the same pocket as their keys. Out of that pot probably comes some sales commission for the person who sold you the insurance. And at the end of the day, there is probably some money left in the pot for Apple to call profit (especially considering that people who buy this insurance still have to pay some of the costs!).

If, like me, you have never significantly damaged a phone, you will have been paying into the pot, and subsiding all the people above, without getting anything back. I would now have put more than enough money into the pot to buy a new iPhone 10, and I could do so in case I do break my new phone on the day I buy it and still be well ahead of the game. For me and people like me, it's almost certainly better not to buy Apple Care Plus or similar insurance products. Why would I pay for new phones for the people who take Andrew Clark1's advice?

I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that Apple Care Plus should be free, given how much money people are already spending on Apple's products? If you are saying that, I agree that it's an interesting idea and I hope Apple will give it serious consideration.

Using your example, the amount in the pot will always exceed the amount coming out of the pot. That’s is what my example above shows.

 

[Tartarus]

Using your example, the amount being in the pot will always exceed the amount coming out of the pot. That’s is what my example above shows.

Exactly. It’s not like Apple is going to reduce the prices for AppleCare+ because less people took advantage of the service. This applies to all insurance companies, really.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Exactly. It’s not like Apple is going to reduce the prices for AppleCare+ because less people took advantage of the service. This applies to all insurance companies, really.

No doubt about it. No one goes into business for the sole purpose of losing money.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Oh, and the money in the pot is not used to repair the devices of people who didn’t contribute to the pot....

 

[Garz]

Exactly. It’s not like Apple is going to reduce the prices for AppleCare+ because less people took advantage of the service. This applies to all insurance companies, really.

Actually yes they have twice that I can remember. Original Stainless steel Apple Watch, AC+ was $69. Series 2 it dropped to $49. Last year the $329 iPad, it was $99. This year the updated iPad it dropped to $69.

It only dropped because there were much less claims that happened than anticipated. Not because goodness of the heart of Apple.

 

[anony_mouse]

Exactly. It’s not like Apple is going to reduce the prices for AppleCare+ because less people took advantage of the service. This applies to all insurance companies, really.

This is absolute nonsense. Insurance is quite a competitive market in most countries. The price does rise and fall based on the expected level of claims. If you seriously believe what you wrote, I encourage you to shop around and get quotes from other companies.

 

[anony_mouse]

Actually yes they have twice that I can remember. Original Stainless steel Apple Watch, AC+ was $69. Series 2 it dropped to $49. Last year the $329 iPad, it was $99. This year the updated iPad it dropped to $69.

It only dropped because there were much less claims that happened than anticipated. Not because goodness of the heart of Apple.

So Garz has the opposite view to Tartarus and Just_Me_D. She or he does think that the price depends on the expected level of claims.

 

[Rob Phillips]

Actually yes they have twice that I can remember. Original Stainless steel Apple Watch, AC+ was $69. Series 2 it dropped to $49. Last year the $329 iPad, it was $99. This year the updated iPad it dropped to $69.

It only dropped because there were much less claims that happened than anticipated. Not because goodness of the heart of Apple.

I doubt Apple said “we’re making too much money; we should lower prices”. They probably figured they’d sell more AC+ contracts if they lowered the price, adding to a greater overall profit. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I just don’t see Apple—or any for-profit corporation—lowering prices just to make less money.

 

[anony_mouse]

Using your example, the amount in the pot will always exceed the amount coming out of the pot. That’s is what my example above shows.

Your example does not such thing. It's just a load of numbers. Do you get my point? The pot has to be large enough to cover all the claims, and the probable sales commission, and the cost of running the scheme, and leave a profit for Apple. The cost of the claims depends on the claims that people make. People who deliberately drop their phone as suggested by Andrew Clark1, and people who break their phone every year, and people who keep their phone in the same pocket as their keys, get to take a disproportionately large amount of money out of the pot - and increase the cost to careful people like you. Don't you think that Andrew Clark1's scheme is a bit selfish?

 

[anony_mouse]

I doubt Apple said “we’re making too much money; we should lower prices”. They probably figured they’d sell more AC+ contracts if they lowered the price, adding to a greater overall profit. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I just don’t see Apple—or any for-profit corporation—lowering prices just to make less money.

Have you heard of the concept of competition in a free market?

 

[Rob Phillips]

Your example does not such thing. It's just a load of numbers. Do you get my point? The pot has to be large enough to cover all the claims, and the probable sales commission, and the cost of running the scheme, and leave a profit for Apple. The cost of the claims depends on the claims that people make. People who deliberately drop their phone as suggested by Andrew Clark1, and people who break their phone every year, and people who keep their phone in the same pocket as their keys, get to take a disproportionately large amount of money out of the pot - and increase the cost to careful people like you. Don't you think that Andrew Clark1's scheme is a bit selfish?

I think you’ve targeted Andrew Clark1 enough. At this point you’re just attacking him. Time to move on.

 

[anony_mouse]

All that matters to me is if I have an issue with my iPhone it gets resolved.

How many problems do you have with your iPhone? I have generally found Apple products to be pretty reliable and easy to use, and have never needed to get a problem resolved by someone else.

Remember, if the product itself is faulty, you are usually entitled to a replacement or a repair free of charge under the manufacturer's warranty, in accordance with consumer protection laws in most countries.

 

[anony_mouse]

I think you’ve targeted Andrew Clark1 enough at this point. At this point you’re just attacking him. Time to move on.

Andrew Clark1 suggested deliberately dropping a phone in order to get it replaced under an insurance policy. That is called fraud. Does no-one else see a problem with this?

 

[Rob Phillips]

Andrew Clark1 suggested deliberately dropping a phone in order to get it replaced under an insurance policy. That is called fraud. Does no-one else see a problem with this?

You’ve made your point. Move on.

 

[Just_Me_D]

So Garz has the opposite view to Tartarus and Just_Me_D. She or he does think that the price depends on the expected level of claims.

1. Garz is his own man with his own view and what he stated is correct from what I can recall.

2. Tartarus’ statement is true in the general sense.

3. My replies had nothing to do with price depending on the expected level of claims, and you know it. In addition, my replies were not in opposition of neither Garz or Tartarus, but in opposition of the argument that you put forth in response to what another poster stated.

 

[anony_mouse]

Drop the phone on the ground then exchange it

To assist the moderators, this is the post in question (number 18 in this thread).

 

[Tartarus]

I doubt Apple said “we’re making too much money; we should lower prices”. They probably figured they’d sell more AC+ contracts if they lowered the price, adding to a greater overall profit. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I just don’t see Apple—or any for-profit corporation—lowering prices just to make less money.

This^^^

 

[anony_mouse]

1. Garz is his own man with his own view and what he stated is correct from what I can recall.

2. Tartarus’ statement is true in the general sense.

3. My replies had nothing to do with price depending on the expected level of claims, and you know it. In addition, my replies were not in opposition of neither Garz or Tartarus, but in opposition of the argument that you put forth in response to what another poster stated.

I am completely lost as to what you are claiming. Please can you clarify whether you think the cost of Apple Care Plus is related to the level of claims or not?