4 ms·

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,

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.
    - cblackthornekc 6y ago
      > Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse? If your plan wasn't to return it from the start, then it isn't abuse. This seems pretty simple. In your original example your "friend" was planning on using GPUs to test and then return them. At no point was he planning on keeping this purchase. Now, I will say if you're friend bought 3 GPU's with the plan to keep one and returned two I would say that's not abuse, but there are certainly better ways to try before you buy.
    - jhauris 6y ago
      There is a definite benefit to giving good faith customers confidence in their ability to return something if they aren't satisfied with it. If the majority of customers are not acting in good faith (meaning never intend to keep the item) that position becomes untenable for the business and as you state the terms are changed. The alternative is to drastically increase the price so that customers who actually want to purchase it can subsidize those that don't. I'm not sure whether there's an ethical problem with acting in that way, but it resembles a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Or, "this is why we can't have nice things".
    - rlkf 6y ago
      > Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse? I'll give you an example, which is also a true story: I bought a 4K TV that could also run Android apps. But, while regular TV broadcasts displayed in 4K, the Android apps were limited to HD. This, of course were never mentioned in any of their marketing material. Did return, and did get a refund, but if it had worked as I thought it did, I would have kept it.
    - greggman3 6y ago
      It's simple to me. The policy is based on "good faith" that people won't lie and abuse the return policy as a free rental. You claim it's okay to follow the letter of the policy and abuse it. When too many people do that the policy is removed. Result: You live in a culture where returns are disallowed. Me, I'd prefer to live in a culture where returns are allowed. That only happens when people don't abuse the return policy. The fact that Apple changed their policy because people abused it is a loss for everyone that had no intention of abusing it. It's even a loss for those who were abusing it if they ever have a legit reason to want to return something. There are a many many policies that only really work on social norms. Living in a society that respects those norms is "almost" always a nicer society to live in.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > The business offers a policy. You're simply using it. There is the spirit and the letter of an agreement. The relative importance of these in commercial contexts varies from culture to culture. (The term of art is high trust versus low trust societies.) Abuse (versus breach) involves complying with the letter of an agreement while violating its spirit. As you observe, this is subjective. Fundamentally, if return policies are treated by customers as a return versus rental, terms can be more generous. If they are abused, the terms must be stricter.
- praxulus 6y ago
  I want to participate in a market where businesses typically offer refunds. When too many people use refund policies in that way, businesses stop offering them. That makes things worse for me, so I wish they wouldn't do that. I don't know if that rises to definition of abuse, but that's why I don't want people to use refunds that way.
- Veen 6y ago
  The consquence of everyone "simply using" returns policies in that way is businesses having much more restrictive returns policies, as we see in India. Most of us don't want that.

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.
  - cblackthornekc 6y ago
    > Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse? If your plan wasn't to return it from the start, then it isn't abuse. This seems pretty simple. In your original example your "friend" was planning on using GPUs to test and then return them. At no point was he planning on keeping this purchase. Now, I will say if you're friend bought 3 GPU's with the plan to keep one and returned two I would say that's not abuse, but there are certainly better ways to try before you buy.
  - jhauris 6y ago
    There is a definite benefit to giving good faith customers confidence in their ability to return something if they aren't satisfied with it. If the majority of customers are not acting in good faith (meaning never intend to keep the item) that position becomes untenable for the business and as you state the terms are changed. The alternative is to drastically increase the price so that customers who actually want to purchase it can subsidize those that don't. I'm not sure whether there's an ethical problem with acting in that way, but it resembles a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Or, "this is why we can't have nice things".
  - rlkf 6y ago
    > Under what conditions are you allowed to use it and it not be abuse? I'll give you an example, which is also a true story: I bought a 4K TV that could also run Android apps. But, while regular TV broadcasts displayed in 4K, the Android apps were limited to HD. This, of course were never mentioned in any of their marketing material. Did return, and did get a refund, but if it had worked as I thought it did, I would have kept it.
  - greggman3 6y ago
    It's simple to me. The policy is based on "good faith" that people won't lie and abuse the return policy as a free rental. You claim it's okay to follow the letter of the policy and abuse it. When too many people do that the policy is removed. Result: You live in a culture where returns are disallowed. Me, I'd prefer to live in a culture where returns are allowed. That only happens when people don't abuse the return policy. The fact that Apple changed their policy because people abused it is a loss for everyone that had no intention of abusing it. It's even a loss for those who were abusing it if they ever have a legit reason to want to return something. There are a many many policies that only really work on social norms. Living in a society that respects those norms is "almost" always a nicer society to live in.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> The business offers a policy. You're simply using it. There is the spirit and the letter of an agreement. The relative importance of these in commercial contexts varies from culture to culture. (The term of art is high trust versus low trust societies.) Abuse (versus breach) involves complying with the letter of an agreement while violating its spirit. As you observe, this is subjective. Fundamentally, if return policies are treated by customers as a return versus rental, terms can be more generous. If they are abused, the terms must be stricter.
praxulus 6y ago
I want to participate in a market where businesses typically offer refunds. When too many people use refund policies in that way, businesses stop offering them. That makes things worse for me, so I wish they wouldn't do that. I don't know if that rises to definition of abuse, but that's why I don't want people to use refunds that way.
Veen 6y ago
The consquence of everyone "simply using" returns policies in that way is businesses having much more restrictive returns policies, as we see in India. Most of us don't want that.