4 ms·

If you read the original email, which is two nodes back in the list, it's clear that the reader is voicing frustration with the possibility of having to spend $

If you read the original email, which is two nodes back in the list, it's clear that the reader is voicing frustration with the possibility of having to spend $300 with no guarantee of fixity. It's not an easy pill to swallow, psychologically. If the customer had AppleCare, hopefully the diagnosis would have been free. But he didn't. In Blackjack insurance is a sucker's bet but in the game of life, perhaps it isn't. How's that for a platitude. p.s. taking suggestions for a single word substitute for "fixity"

jongraehl 17y ago
repair
pyre 17y ago
See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1214566 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1214566 The customer appears to have had AppleCare, but AppleCare doesn't cover damage that is your fault.
- zackattack 17y ago
  You'd hope a simple diagnosis would be covered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY
  - pyre 17y ago
    I agree that a diagnosis should be covered, but the way I read that email it looks like it wasn't.
    - zackattack 17y ago
      Ya, so dude flipped out, and hoped for pity. It's a gambit I myself have employed in the past.. to little success.
dlib 17y ago
Since Apple is most likely to make money off AppleCare, it means that it's probably not worth it. If there's a 50% chance your MacBook breaks and it's worth $1000 you're worse off when you insure it if your insurance premium is above $500. The AppleCare premium includes their profit and is thus above the expected value. Do note, this only applies to goods where you have the means to buy a replacement. If you can't afford a new MacBook (and need one to make a living), insure it. Health care as well, the odds of contracting a serious illness in your twenties are pretty slim but you better insure against it because you can't pay for it if you do get ill. In a similar fashion governments don't need to insure their buildings against fires. They have the means to rebuild, insuring would cost more.

jongraehl 17y ago

repair

pyre 17y ago

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1214566 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1214566 The customer appears to have had AppleCare, but AppleCare doesn't cover damage that is your fault.

zackattack 17y ago
You'd hope a simple diagnosis would be covered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY
- pyre 17y ago
  I agree that a diagnosis should be covered, but the way I read that email it looks like it wasn't.
  - zackattack 17y ago
    Ya, so dude flipped out, and hoped for pity. It's a gambit I myself have employed in the past.. to little success.

dlib 17y ago

Since Apple is most likely to make money off AppleCare, it means that it's probably not worth it. If there's a 50% chance your MacBook breaks and it's worth $1000 you're worse off when you insure it if your insurance premium is above $500. The AppleCare premium includes their profit and is thus above the expected value. Do note, this only applies to goods where you have the means to buy a replacement. If you can't afford a new MacBook (and need one to make a living), insure it. Health care as well, the odds of contracting a serious illness in your twenties are pretty slim but you better insure against it because you can't pay for it if you do get ill. In a similar fashion governments don't need to insure their buildings against fires. They have the means to rebuild, insuring would cost more.