What about Apple’s “responsibility” to consumers?

[Just_Me_D]

Nowadays, people have a notion that companies like Apple has a responsibility to consumers. They believe that Apple should do everything in its power to take care of its consumers. That belief is out of naivety, in my opinion.

Apple is first and foremost a company that offers products and services “at a profit”.

It’s no different than buying food from your favorite restaurant. That restaurant offers meals “at a profit”.

With that in mind, Apple also provides a degree of benevolence. Excellent customer service, timely software updates, and a good return policy are examples of its benevolence, but make no mistake about it, those things are designed to benefit Apple first.

Under no circumstances are they obligated to do anything outside of selling you a product and/or service. Note: This is in exclusion of local and regional laws.

Just like at a restaurant, if you paid for a hamburger, and then you were provided with a hamburger, the restaurant is not obligated to refund you if the burger didn’t taste the way you had hoped. Your expectation will almost always be greater than the seller’s. The more money you spend, the greater the expectation. Still, at its core, Apple selling you an iPhone that you have agreed to buy is just a purchase agreement. If you turned the phone on and it works like it should, that’s all that matters.

Apple’s battery replacement option is a win for Apple because it has given the impression that it is displaying responsibility by offering $29 battery replacements when in reality, they are merely offering something “at a profit”.

What are your thoughts about this post?....

 

[anon(10092459)]

I'm inclined to agree with your post, JMD. It's taken a few days, but really standing back and considering Apple is a business, no different than say Exxon, McDonald's or Chase Bank, I don't feel like Apple's consumer is owed any more than any other place they may do business. Apple runs a business for profit that acts inside the confines of the law.

I just bought an iPad Pro 10.5, that's not two weeks old. I gave Apple my money, they delivered what was promised. At this point, our business relationship is balanced and I don't think they owe me anything more than what was advertised.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I'm inclined to agree with your post, JMD. It's taken a few days, but really standing back and considering Apple is a business, no different than say Exxon, McDonald's or Chase Bank, I don't feel like Apple's consumer is owed any more than any other place they may do business. Apple runs a business for profit that acts inside the confines of the law.

I just bought an iPad Pro 10.5, that's not two weeks old. I gave Apple my money, they delivered what was promised. At this point, our business relationship is balanced and I don't think they owe me anything more than what was advertised.

Bingo! .....You get it!

 

[anon(10092459)]

While I've been thinking about this recent situation with Apple, I recalled an article that Jerry Hildenbrand wrote early this year about who really owns your phone. It was penned with the Samsung Note 7 in mind, but applies to any and all software licenses. In it, he wrote:

"It doesn't spell it out, but the thing you probably didn't read when you set up your phone says that you don't own the software on it, you didn't buy it and you only get to use it because they people who did create it are letting you. And that they have the rights to change stuff. And that you can't do much about it at all. The plastic and glass and metal that are used to make the thing are yours once you've paid for it in full, but anything that happens after you turn it on isn't."

For any one who wants to read the full piece I'll post the link at the bottom, but he's exactly right. Looking through the lens of purely customer and business, Apple has delivered, as promised per their agreement. Any other expectation is solely on the consumer.

https://www.androidcentral.com/who-really-owns-your-phone

 

[Quis89]

You guys are acting like people want Apple to pay their kids through college...

The question isn’t what Apple is or isn’t obligated to do. It’s what should they do as it relates to the customers who are loyal to them. They did the right thing with this whole battery fiasco.

At a restaurant, if you taste a menu item that wasn’t to your liking, typically they take it back and allow you another order so long as you didn’t completely finish the item. Of course we know they aren’t obligated to do that. But it’s in the spirit of customer service. As well as competition because if restaurant A won’t do it, restaurant B might. Customers are what allow these companies to sustain. It isn’t naive to assume a level of customer service will be offered. And it’s wise for companies to offer that. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to continue to enjoy these products.

 

[johnmoore13]

Entitlement rearing it’s ugly head!

 

[SwitchBeach]

Apple, and any other corporation, has a "responsibility" to their shareholders. Period.

Having said that, things like good customer service, high quality products, good value for the consumer are great things to have and to offer the consumer and ultimately, these things will be good for the shareholders, too because consumers will continue to purchase their products and services.

But yes, I agree that many consumers these days seem to have a huge sense of entitlement of what they are "owed" by the company. "Loyalty" shouldn't have any place in it. If the product or service meets your needs in terms of performance and value, then purchase it. If not, buy something else. Purchasing a product or service that doesn't meet your needs simply because you are "loyal" to that company (for whatever reason) is illogical.

 

[Just_Me_D]

You guys are acting like people want Apple to pay their kids through college...

The question isn’t what Apple is or isn’t obligated to do. It’s what should they do as it relates to the customers who are loyal to them. They did the right thing with this whole battery fiasco.

At a restaurant, if you taste a menu item that wasn’t to your liking, typically they take it back and allow you another order so long as you didn’t completely finish the item. Of course we know they aren’t obligated to do that. But it’s in the spirit of customer service. As well as competition because if restaurant A won’t do it, restaurant B might. Customers are what allow these companies to sustain. It isn’t naive to assume a level of customer service will be offered. And it’s wise for companies to offer that. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to continue to enjoy these products.

The point is to understand that Apple or any of other company is not obligated to do anything outside of agreeing to provide a product or service at a profit that the consumer agrees to purchase.

 

[metllicamilitia]

Well in terms of the battery/CPU thing, I do believe Apple should have informed us about it. But I also believe they did it to preserve the life of the phones. It’s basic business economics. If products fail to work properly over time this looks bad on the company. So Apple fixed it so the products continue to run properly over time. This however came at the cost of CPU usage on older batteries. This why I think Apple should have told us about it. It’s a touchy subject. Are they responsible/required to tell us? No, but they should have.

 

[BlackBerry Guy]

Apple owes it's customers a working product and service provided under the terms of the warranty. That's it.

That being said, you need to set customer expectations. They failed to do so in this latest situation with the slow down and battery. Especially given that the idea that they were deliberately slowing down performance to drive upgrades had already been floating out there for some time. All Apple had to do was explain what it was doing up front. By not doing so, it gives consumers the idea that there was something to hide.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Nowadays, people have a notion that companies like Apple has a responsibility to consumers. They believe that Apple should do everything in its power to take care of its consumers.

With that in mind, Apple also provides a degree of benevolence. Excellent customer service, timely software updates, and a good return policy are examples of its benevolence, but make no mistake about it, those things are designed to benefit Apple first.

Well, yeah. It's called good business. Anyone with any business experience knows that these two things go hand in hand.

Just like at a restaurant, if you paid for a hamburger, and then you were provided with a hamburger, the restaurant is not obligated to refund you if the burger didn’t taste the way you had hoped. Your expectation will almost always be greater that the seller’s.

Of course not. Who is arguing this? This is just hyperbole.

The point is to understand that Apple or any of other company is not obligated to do anything outside of agreeing to provide a product or service at a profit that the consumer agrees to purchase.

He literally quoted you and then said that the question isn't about what Apple's obligations are then you brought up "obligations" again.

The question isn’t what Apple is or isn’t obligated to do. It’s what should they do as it relates to the customers who are loyal to them. They did the right thing with this whole battery fiasco.

^^

Apple’s battery replacement option is a win for Apple because it has given the impression that it is displaying responsibility by offering $29 battery replacements when in reality, they are merely offering something “at a profit”.

I understand people want to sound like they're being exquisite and want to show people that they figured out the underlying reason why Apple did what they did so they can tell the less intellectual people what this is really about, but this is a win-win. A customer will be paying $50 less for a battery replacement, thus saving $50, while Apple still turns a profit.

I know I'm a villain around here sometimes, but this is a pretty pretentious post and I have a feeling I'm not alone in this line of thinking.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Apple, and any other corporation, has a "responsibility" to their shareholders. Period.

This!

Having said that, things like good customer service, high quality products, good value for the consumer are great things to have and to offer the consumer and ultimately, these things will be good for the shareholders, too because consumers will continue to purchase their products and services.

No doubt, but still, outside of the agreed upon sell and purchase, they are not obligated to do anything else.

But yes, I agree that many consumers these days seem to have a huge sense of entitlement of what they are "owed" by the company. "Loyalty" shouldn't have any place in it. If the product or service meets your needs in terms of performance and value, then purchase it. If not, buy something else. Purchasing a product or service that doesn't meet your needs simply because you are "loyal" to that company (for whatever reason) is illogical.

Amen!

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

You guys are acting like people want Apple to pay their kids through college...

I agree wholeheartedly. The trend nowadays is for people to switch the narrative on things.

 

[Quis89]

The point is to understand that Apple or any of other company is not obligated to do anything outside of agreeing to provide a product or service at a profit that the consumer agrees to purchase.

I haven't seen anyone arguing anything to the contrary. It hasn't been what Apple is obligated to do. It's what should they do in an attempt to do right by the consumers who felt wronged. To respond to them with "too bad. Apple doesn't owe you anything" is a bit rough. I'm glad Apple chose a different approach.

And let's be honest, the menality expressed here certainly isn't what got Apple to where they are. Their exceptional customer service played a big role. Regardless of the legalities of what they rightfully should and shouldn't do. Arguing what they don't owe us is pointless when they've shown time and time again that they work to make things right and go beyond the fine print you guys reference.

 

[Quis89]

Purchasing a product or service that doesn't meet your needs simply because you are "loyal" to that company (for whatever reason) is illogical.

You guys do a lot of "it's business" type comments here so I'm surprised that you don't see how funny this statement is. Apple and every other company devotes money and resources to convince the public that they need their product. They also work to establish brand loyalty and develop a consumer base. The very thing you call "illogical" is exactly what the companies you're all defending want lol. This isn't conspiracy. This is reality. This is "business".

 

[anon(10092459)]

@Quis89 I easily agree with you probably 92% of your posts. In this case, what my thoughts are curious about is why to people feel like Apple owed them some explanation before implementation?

Take iOS 11 as an example. The whole Wi-Fi/Bluetooth on/off issue. That was implemented into the software without public announcement and also presented later as a feature. Software is implemented all the time that may or may not meet public expectation. Why would this be any different than anything else implemented?

They've apologized, they've offered reduced pricing o batteries and promised more transparency into the battery management. So why all the anger over it all ? I don't get it.

 

[Quis89]

@Quis89 I easily agree with you probably 92% of your posts. In this case, what my thoughts are curious about is why to people feel like Apple owed them some explanation before implementation?

Take iOS 11 as an example. The whole Wi-Fi/Bluetooth on/off issue. That was implemented into the software without public announcement and also presented later as a feature. Software is implemented all the time that may or may not meet public expectation. Why would this be any different than anything else implemented?

They've apologized, they've offered reduced pricing o batteries and promised more transparency into the battery management. So why all the anger over it all ? I don't get it.

I’ll say firstly that I was never angry over any of this. I just personally felt Apple handled this all very poorly.

Why did they need to announce the change?
Imagine you’ve got an iPhone 6. You love your iPhone 6. You can’t really afford to buy a new phone so you want to continue using your iPhone 6. Then your iPhone 6 gets updated to iOS 11 and all of a sudden things go downhill. Your phone isn’t performing as you’re used to. You aren’t sure why. You’ve reset your device and all and it’s still performing poorly. In what piece of literature provided by Apple does it recommend a new battery to solve your troubles? Where would the average customer have seen that they implemented a change in your device to compensate for your aging battery? How would you have known that to fix your issue, a $79 battery replacement would be needed?

You wouldn’t have known this. And many people didn’t know this. So what did those people do? Many of them probably upgraded. None of us are naive enough to think Apple didn’t see consumer upgrades due to this, are we?

That’s why I think Apple should have said something beforehand. Any change to my device that will adversely affect its performance should be communicated if that change is by the hands of the manufacturer. Then I’d be able to make a more informed decision. By choosing to do this without mention, they took away our ability to make an informed decision about the devices we purchased when they show signs of age.

That’s my only gripe. And the changes you listed are awesome. They benefit all of us. We should all be happy about those changes. But do you think we’d have seen those changes if it weren’t for opinions like mine challenging their process? Imagine if we all said “Apple is a business who can do what they want and they owe us nothing”. This is a free market at work. We, the consumers, let our voices be heard. And the companies respond as they see fit. I’m glad with Apples response.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

@Quis89They've apologized, they've offered reduced pricing o batteries and promised more transparency into the battery management. So why all the anger over it all ? I don't get it.

Quis89 didn’t start the thread.

 

[anon(10092459)]

I’ll say firstly that I was never angry over any of this. I just personally felt Apple handled this all very poorly.

Why did they need to announce the change?
Imagine you’ve got an iPhone 6. You love your iPhone 6. You can’t really afford to buy a new phone so you want to continue using your iPhone 6. Then your iPhone 6 gets updated to iOS 11 and all of a sudden things go downhill. Your phone isn’t performing as you’re used to. You aren’t sure why. You’ve reset your device and all and it’s still performing poorly. In what piece of literature provided by Apple does it recommend a new battery to solve your troubles? Where would the average customer have seen that they implemented a change in your device to compensate for your aging battery? How would you have known that to fix your issue, a $79 battery replacement would be needed?

You wouldn’t have known this. And many people didn’t know this. So what did those people do? Many of them probably upgraded. None of us are naive enough to think Apple didn’t see consumer upgrades due to this, are we?

That’s why I think Apple should have said something beforehand. Any change to my device that will adversely affect its performance should be communicated if that change is by the hands of the manufacturer. Then I’d be able to make a more informed decision. By choosing to do this without mention, they took away our ability to make an informed decision about the devices we purchased when they show signs of age.

That’s my only gripe. And the changes you listed are awesome. They benefit all of us. We should all be happy about those changes. But do you think we’d have seen those changes if it weren’t for opinions like mine challenging their process? Imagine if we all said “Apple is a business who can do what they want and they owe us nothing”. This is a free market at work. We, the consumers, let our voices be heard. And the companies respond as they see fit. I’m glad with Apples response.

Okay, speaking for myself only, I have low expectations of any company outside of what was agreed upon. So if six months or a year from now this iPad drags to a crawl, for whatever reason, I wouldn't feel some sense of betrayal or expect some explanation from Apple.

I guess I'm seeing all this as people having expectations that Apple never said explicitly they would grant. When I bought my new device, I tempered all expectations and responsibilities from Apple outside of the terms of agreement. If they want to do something else additional outside of that to be "nice" that's fine, but I don't expect them (or any other company) to, I guess

 

[anon(10092459)]

Quis89 didn’t start the thread.

Sorry for the confusion. I was speaking in general and not to this specific post. I've read a number of tech blogs/forums where the community feels this was handled poorly.