The Applecare Hustle • Hacker News Board

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#61

Post by vinay427 » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 10:24 AM UTC

vurpo wrote: post #48

Semaphor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ThinkPads lost their reputation shortly after the sale to Lenovo.

Some of the most popular ThinkPads, even among diehard ThinkPad fanatics, are from well into the Lenovo era. Say, for example, the X220, X300, T420. They came out several years after IBM stopped having anything to do with ThinkPads, and they are exactly as durable and easily repairable as the old reputation of ThinkPads say they are.

I would go even farther than this. The "real" ThinkPad lines after the T420/X220 generation (T440, X1, W series, etc.) have had many of the traits that make ThinkPads unique, such as the spillproof keyboard, TrackPoint with physical buttons except for the T440 generation, incredibly durable structure, and relatively high upgradeability.

The upgradeability has certainly decreased, but unlike most laptops on the market the losses in most ThinkPad lines typically felt like genuine tradeoffs rather than the product of laziness. I, for one, don't want a machine that weights 2.5 kg or more, and this is possible with the modern ThinkPad line while still having a replaceable keyboard, 14" display, RAM, 2.5" disk drive, two batteries, WLAN, etc.

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#62

Post by exporectomy » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 10:25 AM UTC

Chernobog wrote: post #53

AppleCare is such a non-issue here in Norway. We have five years of "reklamasjon" (think of it as kind of a mandatory warranty). I wonder how electronics would have been built if this was a global thing.

Surely that doesn't cover accidental damage like AppleCare does? Apple already provides normal warranties too.

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#63

Post by jeroenhd » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 10:31 AM UTC

The real hustle isn't Apple's insurance, but the ludicrous prices they ask for repairs. $380 for replacing some foam? $380 + 2 x $115 for a manufacturing defect? Hell, $700 dollars for replacing a screen? Or even worse, $520 for fixing some basic issues with a watch?

For all of those repair estimates you could've bought one or even two similar devices from other brands. I understand that people get locked into the Apple ecosystem, but even then they should be able to spot these outrageous bills, shouldn't they?

Apple can greenwash their product all they want but as long as it's cheaper to buy a new device from their competitors each year than to repair their old devices, their claims can go right intotthe garbage.

I've paid €200 for a screen repair on my phone, of which the part itself cost about $120 (because I couldn't be arsed to learn how to use a heat gun) for a screen that's bigger and is frankly of better quality than that of a similarly sized iPhone of the same build year. The screen replacement service was a third party, so they didn't even have the advantage of controlling the flow of replacement parts to repair centers, instead having to buy the components off the internet. Apple's repair program is a complete sham, and the fact someone has needed this many repairs in only three years is a testament of their devices' lack in build quality to boot.

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#64

Post by Ekaros » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 10:31 AM UTC

moksly wrote: post #20

mehwoot wrote: post #5

In contrast, the insured often relies on a recollection of their history and a ton of emotional reasoning to decide if they will be the statistical oddity to make "a profit" of having bought insurance. This isn't generally the point of insurance. The point of insurance is to amortise risk. Yes, the insurance company expects to, on average, get more money from insuring my house than the cost of any damage to it. But i…

I’m not sure if this is a Danish thing, but here you can add an electronic appliance insurance to your regular “indboforsikring” which is the policy form that covers your home and all the shit in it. They come in various forms, but mine covers anything from throwing a wii controller into a TV to losing your laptop in a bag or having it stolen. It also covers all family members and is $80 a year. It does require you t…

Also my Finnish credit card had surprisingly good protection knocked my 150€ external HDD of desk resulted in usual knocking sound, made claim and got about half that back. So there is other options that cover, not often looked at.

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#65

Post by csomar » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 10:53 AM UTC

mehwoot wrote: post #5

In contrast, the insured often relies on a recollection of their history and a ton of emotional reasoning to decide if they will be the statistical oddity to make "a profit" of having bought insurance. This isn't generally the point of insurance. The point of insurance is to amortise risk. Yes, the insurance company expects to, on average, get more money from insuring my house than the cost of any damage to it. But i…

> The point of insurance is to amortise risk.

I don't think so. Insurance doesn't amortize risk for the individual (though it amortizes risk for the pool). Say you have a 1 in 1.000 years of your house getting destroyed in an earthquake; this means you most likely will never get a payout in a 50-60 years period.

If you pay 1 in 500 odds (the insurance makes money), you can never amortize this risk over your lifetime. However, such an event might be too catastrophic for you to bear, so you go with the insurance. I mean, some people are going to go through earthquakes/fires every year. So for society, as a whole, you are better off being insured.

> In the case here for apple care, I'm not sure. What apple charges for repairs almost definitely has markup, so it's possible that they can provide insurance that averages out below the expected "cost" of repairs but still makes apple money. So maybe it is actually a win-win. Definitely makes sense to add it all up and see if you're getting value for money.

That's Apple care for you. It certainly doesn't cost the markup that Apple's is asking for. But for people who are too deep into Apple, it provides them into a window of staying Apple compliant. People who do not care about Apple Care might be the one who needs it the most, but Apple might know that which is why they put a price on it. (this is solely my assumption).

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#66

Post by mbjdesign » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 10:58 AM UTC

jeroenhd wrote: post #63

The real hustle isn't Apple's insurance, but the ludicrous prices they ask for repairs. $380 for replacing some foam? $380 + 2 x $115 for a manufacturing defect? Hell, $700 dollars for replacing a screen? Or even worse, $520 for fixing some basic issues with a watch? For all of those repair estimates you could've bought one or even two similar devices from other brands. I understand that people get locked into the Ap…

I came here to say this. Whether you take out AppleCare or just take repair costs on the chin: Apple is probably walking away with a decent chunk of cash because the cost of repairs are so high relative to the cost to them - even in the case where a "repair" is actually a replacement.

As most repairs (screens for example) are capped within the AppleCare period and carry an excess I think the only situation where Apple doesn't make a profit is when breakages and faults are solely their fault and a result of poor engineering. As we all know, they are terrible at admitting fault in these instances because what it could cost them is mind-boggling.

The other point I took from this post is how increasingly fragile these devices are. Aside from a pre-unibody 17" MacBook Pro that regularly fried it's components, all my iDevices have been pretty reliable and sturdy. That said my iPhone 7 Plus suffered a smashed screen from far less abuse than my 4S did. Equally my wife's new 12 Mini seems even more prone to damage than the 7 Plus.

If I was repairing or replacing devices as much as he seems to be (particularly headphones) then I'd be reconsidering my purchasing preferences. You wouldn't buy a car where where misfires and free replacements are expected (as with most AirPods and crackling issues) - you would find an alternative.

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#67

Post by kalleboo » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 11:00 AM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #7

I buy AppleCare on any Mac that I expect to probably resell down the road, since it transfers with the device. It improves the resale value enough to make the insurance a more attractive proposition.

Also you can often find a reason to have the top case replaced which gives you a clean keyboard and new battery, further increasing resale value

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#68

Post by i_am_proteus » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 11:01 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #58

fnordsensei wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During my decade or so as a consultant, I did a project with one of the oldest insurance companies in my country of residence (they've been around for well over 200 years). They made sure I was aware of their history, in order to understand their business. They started out insuring farms against calamities. If a farm burned down, it was a proper disaster: for the farmer, for everyone who worked there, and for the sur…

I'm staunchly anti-insurance in most cases, as once someone is making a profit it can't be a positive-expected-value deal. But that angle seems to have been covered already so just to be different - insurers also have the strongest incentives in the market to make sure risks don't play out. There is nobody with more at stake in the event of a bad flood or other disaster. The incentive structures around insurance (in…

It might not be positive expected value (dollars) but it's often positive expected utility.

This is usually because insurance hedges against tail risks that wipe out the individual, and in these cases utility is a nonlinear function of dollars.

Most people would rather pay 1% of their net worth to deterministically avoid a 1/100 chance of losing their entire net worth.

Because insurers pool risk, it ends up being simultaneously rational for the individual to carry insurance and profitable for the insurer to write insurance policies.

Investments are a similar kind of risk pooling, but for upsides. You would not gamble your entire net worth on a prospect with uncertain profitability, but a large number of investors each risking a small fraction of their wealth make it possible to raise capital for risky but possibly valuable projects.

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#69

Post by tomduncalf » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 11:02 AM UTC

I feel it's been worth it for me on my laptop (top spec 16"), I had one of the cursed 2017 butterfly models which I eventually got them to replace with a 2019 model (with a spec bump, which I paid extra for) after multiple repairs. I might have been able to get the replacement without AppleCare (under EU consumer law for example) but I definitely got the sense that it was much easier because I had AppleCare.

I then spilled beer over the replacement and was able to get basically the entire laptop replaced for the ~£300 accidental damage charge. I might have been able to claim this on my home insurance, but again, much more straightforward with AppleCare.

Not sure I'd bother on lower priced items though.

Re: The Applecare Hustle

#70

Post by bhickey » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 11:02 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #58

fnordsensei wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During my decade or so as a consultant, I did a project with one of the oldest insurance companies in my country of residence (they've been around for well over 200 years). They made sure I was aware of their history, in order to understand their business. They started out insuring farms against calamities. If a farm burned down, it was a proper disaster: for the farmer, for everyone who worked there, and for the sur…

I'm staunchly anti-insurance in most cases, as once someone is making a profit it can't be a positive-expected-value deal. But that angle seems to have been covered already so just to be different - insurers also have the strongest incentives in the market to make sure risks don't play out. There is nobody with more at stake in the event of a bad flood or other disaster. The incentive structures around insurance (in…

> as once someone is making a profit it can't be a positive-expected-value deal.

This isn't true. There are risks an entity with a billion dollars can profitably take on that a person with a thousand dollars can't. Insurance can reallocate those risks to leave both parties better off in expectation.