Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!yale!eagle!bparsia
From: bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Worthless Warranty
Message-ID: <13144@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 90 11:35:22 GMT
References: <50816@cc.utah.edu> <7306@goofy.Apple.COM> <1945@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Mar21.014309.10015@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1951@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Lines: 55

In article <1951@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, mjkobb@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael J Kobb) writes:
> In article <1990Mar21.014309.10015@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) writes:
>>>
>>>Okay, first of all, I'm not a crackpot, and I resent your implying that I am.
>>
>>Sorry, I have to agree with David Berry.  You're acting like a crackpot...
> 
> Obviously, I disagree.  I won't hold name-calling against you, though.
> 
>>>Second:  I feel that everybody who has complained about this issue is 100%
>>>justified.  The fact that car buyers don't complain that the car companies are
>>>screwing them over as loudly as we do when the computer companies screw us
>>>over is not a valid excuse.
>>
>>Why?  You knew about the warranty situation when you bought your machine.
>>If you wanted the longer warranty (which, apparently, you didn't), you could
>>have paid for AppleCare.  Now, in effect, Apple *lowers* the price of all 
> 
> You misunderstand me.  Of course I knew the warranty situation.  However, I
> also wanted a Macintosh much more than I wanted some other machine.
> Therefore, I chose the lesser of two evils:  I purchased a machine with
> inadequate warranty.  And no, I wasn't going to shell out the outrageous sum
> of money Apple wanted for AppleCare, because I couldn't afford it!  I could
> barely afford the IIx at university discounts, and subsidizing Apple corporate
> greed with more of my money was not at all on my agenda.
> 
> Now, then: It has been pointed out to me in email that Apple couldn't really
> have put all machines <1 year old under warranty, because some of them might
> have broken in the meantime, and been fixed by non-Apple shops, etc. etc.
> I'll concede this point.
> 
> I think what it comes down to is this:  Apple had an inadequate warranty,
> about which people justifiably complained.  Now they have fixed it (to their
> credit and, I think, the benefit of their business).  They should expect
> people who felt screwed over at only having a 90-day warranty to feel screwed
> over that they missed out on it.  They deserve all the flames they get.  They
> do, however, also deserve praise for listening to their customers (even if it
> was only in fear of losing them).  SO, thanks, Apple, for upping your
> warranty. If you'd done it a bit sooner, I would have bought a bunch more
> stuff from you, but at least I'll feel okay about buying stuff from you in the
> future.
> 
> Here ends my contribution to this flame war.  I'm not going to respond to any
> more email or any more postings, because it's taking too much time.
> 
> --Mike
> 
> Disclaimer: I think that disclaimers are an incredibly sad statement about our
> society.  Nonetheless, nothing that I say can or should be construed as having
> been said by anyone.  Ever.

A truely noble posting. You have proved your non-crackpotness and I, for one,
thank you.

Bijan J. Parsia