6 ms·

I disagree with categorizing this as abuse. The company was offering a refund policy. The customers were using it. My friend Kevin used to test out different G

I disagree with categorizing this as abuse. The company was offering a refund policy. The customers were using it. My friend Kevin used to test out different GPUs when he was writing a game engine. He'd buy one, install it on his computer, run the engine, then return it a few days later. They often had a 10% restocking fee. Was he abusing policy? It's the same sort of logic banks use to justify "identity theft." Ah yes, it's the fault of the customer, not the banks' poor verification methods. That said, it's true that when large amounts of people do a thing, you'll have to adjust policy. But it's not their fault for taking advantage of policies they're legally allowed to use, and that the company freely offers.

cblackthornekc 6y ago
Yes? That is abusing the policy. Sounds like he was trying to start a business and wanted to do QA. Then you need to pay for that. This is clearly unethical, but maybe not illegal.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  He often did pay for that. That's the point of the 10% restocking fee.
  - selykg 6y ago
    Your friend was treating a return policy as a rental policy. I don't think that's in the spirit of a return policy.
    - ramraj07 6y ago
      Are we going to blame people for not buying WinRaR licenses next? These are businesses, they offer the policy for a variety of reasons, I am free to use them within the terms; it sounds a bit out there to categorise returning a product in a “no questions asked return” policy as unethical unless I actively sabotaged the product or did anything other than use it and give it back.
      - selykg 6y ago
        Not that you don't make a point with this, I do have to say that Winrar hasn't changed how they handle their licensing/usage to combat this. I suspect they're "okay" with it so to speak as a result. The fact that businesses change their policies as a result of abuse should tell you whether these actions are within the spirit of what they intended or whether it's outside of it.
      - blackearl 6y ago
        You shouldn't be angry that Apple is changing the terms then.
      - AlisdairO 6y ago
        I find it unethical because the net effect is that companies stop offering friendly return policies. When people treat return policies by the letter of the agreement rather than by its spirit, they create a world where companies won't offer relaxed return policies, and therefore make the world a bit worse for everyone else. It's not illegal to use the agreement in this way, and I would never try to make it so. But I would absolutely look down on someone for behaving this way.
  - cblackthornekc 6y ago
    No, that isn't the point of that at all. 10% isn't so you can use a card and then give it back. 10% is so the staff can package it up, send it back to the manufacturer so they can resell it. Or so they can mark it as "refurbished" and recoup some of the lost value of a new card.
    - juancb 6y ago
      There you go "some" of the value. So either the store or the manufacturer eats the rest of the lost value, in either case the person using the policy at face value is taking value. In a lot of cases taking value would be stealing, but this is one of those cases where there's only a social contract and a set of norms that guard it and it's not seen as such. Think of a complementary offering of some kind based on an honor system, some treat or trinket in a bowl. Sure you can take just one or take them all. If you take them all you can argue that they're free but you're still a that guy that helps bring about a tragedy of the commons. Culturally in the states and Latin America that makes you jerk and people will hate you for it. So there is social pressure in place to help regulate those events, but it may not always be the case everywhere.
  - juancb 6y ago
    The 10% restocking fee is a compromise between offerring a permissive return policy that gets abused and none at all. I have always understood it to be a deterrent and not the exact amount that must be recouped in order to make returns net zero loss events.
  - ohazi 6y ago
    This disconnect is precisely why you can get a refund in the US but not in India. There's the "letter of the policy" interpretation, where anything the text of the policy doesn't explicitly forbid is A-Okay. And then there's the "socially acceptable norms" interpretation, where you're only supposed to ask for refunds when a product is actually defective, and if you go any further than that, society and HN comments will shame you for it. In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people for anything and everything, so companies can have generous policies and lean on the social norms interpretation to keep people in check. India is more of a free-for-all, so companies feel the need to spell everything out.
    - mavelikara 6y ago
      > In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people for anything and everything, so companies can have generous policies and lean on the social norms interpretation to keep people in check. Consumers in US can buy a product without the anxiety of not having read the fine print, knowing that the seller will honor the return policy. Sellers also end up selling more because most buyers like the product they buy. Society wins overall. I have lived both in India and US, about two decades each at both places.
      - ohazi 6y ago
        Oh I agree, this is definitely a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. I was mostly joking about the shaming bit because of all the sibling comments.
        mavelikara 6y ago
        I think the calling out is justified. Having lived in India, it is a country filled with these Smart Alecks who ruin it for everyone. I find it the duty of the general public to call these out, if we want to keep good things.
segmondy 6y ago
Yes, he was abusing it. The refund policy is for if you're really unsatisfied with the product. If you buy a product with the intent to return it for refund, that's abuse.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Again, why? It's tautology to say "That's abuse because it's abuse." The business offers a policy. You're simply using it. We can agree to disagree, but it's not X just because someone says it is.
  - ahepp 6y ago
    How is what they said in any way circular or a tautology? >If you buy a product with the intent to return it for refund, that's abuse.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bootlooped 6y ago
    Your position seems to be that if it's legal and within the technical guidelines, then it's not abuse. If so then what is abuse? I think the issue is people operating in bad faith. I recall a story about people buying big TVs before the super bowl then returning them the next week. My opinion is that's abusing a company's generous return policy. The people doing that never intended to buy. The company had the policy to give customers more confidence in their purchases, not to run a free TV rental business. There's a saying "this is why we can't have nice things". If people constantly push leniency or generosity to the limits, they get taken away, and it's a net loss to everybody else.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      Finally, a logical comment. Thank you. I counter with the following observation: You note that a return policy exists so that customers can use it. Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse? Being able to return the product is often why customers buy something. How many times have you considered the return policy before buying? You can decide to return it for any reason you like: whether you dislike the product, whether you ran out of money and needed a refund, or for no reason at all. If it's a problem, the business will change the policy, just as Apple did here.
smarttoi 6y ago
That is fucking abuse. Wtf
mavelikara 6y ago
This is equivalent of a thief arguing that they entered the victim's property because the doors were unlocked. Yes, it is abuse.
NopeNotToday 6y ago
A return policy is not a rental program. Yes, this is abuse.
f311a 6y ago
Start producing something by yourself. You will be very happy with such "non-abusive" uses that generate you losses. If you are an honest seller, you can't even resell returned products as brand new.
clintonc 6y ago
> Was he abusing policy? Yes. Here, abuse means misuse, which must be interpreted relative to the intent of the ones making the policy (or else it's meaningless). The intent is clear: for customers to be able to return the item if they are not satisfied. It is not a borrow/rental policy.
CobrastanJorji 6y ago
Those are different things. Taking advantage of a return "for any reason" policy is fine. Stealing money by lying about your identity is not okay.
zhaowang 6y ago
This is definitely abuse. The policy is there does not mean customer can use it in whatever way you like. The company honor the policy also does not mean the consumer is not abusing the policy. Remember Costco permanently blocked some consumers due to abusing the return policy? Costco honors the policy, but those consumers were still considered as abusing the policy.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Exactly. That's Costco's right, and it's an example of the system working as intended. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with illegal copyright infringement being classified as "piracy"? My issue here is the terminology. It's deceptive to classify this behavior as "abuse," as if someone was kicking a puppy. It's an asshole thing to do, but it's not abuse. No one is doing anything illegal, and everyone is free to feel however they wish about their morals.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Actually you are wrong. There are absolutely laws against return abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud This is the problem when people go around pretending like they are technically correct, when they aren't. Everyone else, intuitively understood the problem with return abuse, except for you. Which is why you got this wrong. If you had focused less on trying to find some clever hack or technically, then you wouldn't have been so misinformed on this issue.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      No, there's nothing in that list even vaguely related to anything I've said. It shares a name. It's not the same thing at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud#Types Not one of those examples is "the act of purchasing an item with the intent to return it." Also, be less aggressive. We're having a conversation here. It's not a battle. The entry you're looking for is Wardrobing, and it's most certainly not illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobing The Talk page even has someone asking the very same question I am: Why is it fraud? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wardrobing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wardrobing It's not fraud. It's not "abuse," and it's not illegal. You're free to feel however you wish about it.

cblackthornekc 6y ago

Yes? That is abusing the policy. Sounds like he was trying to start a business and wanted to do QA. Then you need to pay for that. This is clearly unethical, but maybe not illegal.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
He often did pay for that. That's the point of the 10% restocking fee.
- selykg 6y ago
  Your friend was treating a return policy as a rental policy. I don't think that's in the spirit of a return policy.
  - ramraj07 6y ago
    Are we going to blame people for not buying WinRaR licenses next? These are businesses, they offer the policy for a variety of reasons, I am free to use them within the terms; it sounds a bit out there to categorise returning a product in a “no questions asked return” policy as unethical unless I actively sabotaged the product or did anything other than use it and give it back.
    - selykg 6y ago
      Not that you don't make a point with this, I do have to say that Winrar hasn't changed how they handle their licensing/usage to combat this. I suspect they're "okay" with it so to speak as a result. The fact that businesses change their policies as a result of abuse should tell you whether these actions are within the spirit of what they intended or whether it's outside of it.
    - blackearl 6y ago
      You shouldn't be angry that Apple is changing the terms then.
    - AlisdairO 6y ago
      I find it unethical because the net effect is that companies stop offering friendly return policies. When people treat return policies by the letter of the agreement rather than by its spirit, they create a world where companies won't offer relaxed return policies, and therefore make the world a bit worse for everyone else. It's not illegal to use the agreement in this way, and I would never try to make it so. But I would absolutely look down on someone for behaving this way.
- cblackthornekc 6y ago
  No, that isn't the point of that at all. 10% isn't so you can use a card and then give it back. 10% is so the staff can package it up, send it back to the manufacturer so they can resell it. Or so they can mark it as "refurbished" and recoup some of the lost value of a new card.
  - juancb 6y ago
    There you go "some" of the value. So either the store or the manufacturer eats the rest of the lost value, in either case the person using the policy at face value is taking value. In a lot of cases taking value would be stealing, but this is one of those cases where there's only a social contract and a set of norms that guard it and it's not seen as such. Think of a complementary offering of some kind based on an honor system, some treat or trinket in a bowl. Sure you can take just one or take them all. If you take them all you can argue that they're free but you're still a that guy that helps bring about a tragedy of the commons. Culturally in the states and Latin America that makes you jerk and people will hate you for it. So there is social pressure in place to help regulate those events, but it may not always be the case everywhere.
- juancb 6y ago
  The 10% restocking fee is a compromise between offerring a permissive return policy that gets abused and none at all. I have always understood it to be a deterrent and not the exact amount that must be recouped in order to make returns net zero loss events.
- ohazi 6y ago
  This disconnect is precisely why you can get a refund in the US but not in India. There's the "letter of the policy" interpretation, where anything the text of the policy doesn't explicitly forbid is A-Okay. And then there's the "socially acceptable norms" interpretation, where you're only supposed to ask for refunds when a product is actually defective, and if you go any further than that, society and HN comments will shame you for it. In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people for anything and everything, so companies can have generous policies and lean on the social norms interpretation to keep people in check. India is more of a free-for-all, so companies feel the need to spell everything out.
  - mavelikara 6y ago
    > In the US, we have a thriving culture of shaming people for anything and everything, so companies can have generous policies and lean on the social norms interpretation to keep people in check. Consumers in US can buy a product without the anxiety of not having read the fine print, knowing that the seller will honor the return policy. Sellers also end up selling more because most buyers like the product they buy. Society wins overall. I have lived both in India and US, about two decades each at both places.
    - ohazi 6y ago
      Oh I agree, this is definitely a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. I was mostly joking about the shaming bit because of all the sibling comments.
      - mavelikara 6y ago
        I think the calling out is justified. Having lived in India, it is a country filled with these Smart Alecks who ruin it for everyone. I find it the duty of the general public to call these out, if we want to keep good things.

segmondy 6y ago

Yes, he was abusing it. The refund policy is for if you're really unsatisfied with the product. If you buy a product with the intent to return it for refund, that's abuse.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Again, why? It's tautology to say "That's abuse because it's abuse." The business offers a policy. You're simply using it. We can agree to disagree, but it's not X just because someone says it is.
- ahepp 6y ago
  How is what they said in any way circular or a tautology? >If you buy a product with the intent to return it for refund, that's abuse.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bootlooped 6y ago
  Your position seems to be that if it's legal and within the technical guidelines, then it's not abuse. If so then what is abuse? I think the issue is people operating in bad faith. I recall a story about people buying big TVs before the super bowl then returning them the next week. My opinion is that's abusing a company's generous return policy. The people doing that never intended to buy. The company had the policy to give customers more confidence in their purchases, not to run a free TV rental business. There's a saying "this is why we can't have nice things". If people constantly push leniency or generosity to the limits, they get taken away, and it's a net loss to everybody else.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    Finally, a logical comment. Thank you. I counter with the following observation: You note that a return policy exists so that customers can use it. Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse? Being able to return the product is often why customers buy something. How many times have you considered the return policy before buying? You can decide to return it for any reason you like: whether you dislike the product, whether you ran out of money and needed a refund, or for no reason at all. If it's a problem, the business will change the policy, just as Apple did here.

smarttoi 6y ago

That is fucking abuse. Wtf

mavelikara 6y ago

This is equivalent of a thief arguing that they entered the victim's property because the doors were unlocked. Yes, it is abuse.

NopeNotToday 6y ago

A return policy is not a rental program. Yes, this is abuse.

f311a 6y ago

Start producing something by yourself. You will be very happy with such "non-abusive" uses that generate you losses. If you are an honest seller, you can't even resell returned products as brand new.

clintonc 6y ago

> Was he abusing policy? Yes. Here, abuse means misuse, which must be interpreted relative to the intent of the ones making the policy (or else it's meaningless). The intent is clear: for customers to be able to return the item if they are not satisfied. It is not a borrow/rental policy.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

Those are different things. Taking advantage of a return "for any reason" policy is fine. Stealing money by lying about your identity is not okay.

zhaowang 6y ago

This is definitely abuse. The policy is there does not mean customer can use it in whatever way you like. The company honor the policy also does not mean the consumer is not abusing the policy. Remember Costco permanently blocked some consumers due to abusing the return policy? Costco honors the policy, but those consumers were still considered as abusing the policy.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Exactly. That's Costco's right, and it's an example of the system working as intended. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with illegal copyright infringement being classified as "piracy"? My issue here is the terminology. It's deceptive to classify this behavior as "abuse," as if someone was kicking a puppy. It's an asshole thing to do, but it's not abuse. No one is doing anything illegal, and everyone is free to feel however they wish about their morals.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Actually you are wrong. There are absolutely laws against return abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud This is the problem when people go around pretending like they are technically correct, when they aren't. Everyone else, intuitively understood the problem with return abuse, except for you. Which is why you got this wrong. If you had focused less on trying to find some clever hack or technically, then you wouldn't have been so misinformed on this issue.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    No, there's nothing in that list even vaguely related to anything I've said. It shares a name. It's not the same thing at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_fraud#Types Not one of those examples is "the act of purchasing an item with the intent to return it." Also, be less aggressive. We're having a conversation here. It's not a battle. The entry you're looking for is Wardrobing, and it's most certainly not illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobing The Talk page even has someone asking the very same question I am: Why is it fraud? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wardrobing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wardrobing It's not fraud. It's not "abuse," and it's not illegal. You're free to feel however you wish about it.