Gaming the system?

n this case, the costs of this process are obviously 
already amortized into the overall retail costs of doing business. 

So are the costs of shoplifting.  

>>> There are some of us (I hope a lot) who think of this at a minimum
>>> as gaming the system and in general theft of services from Apple.
>>> I'd walk out on a client who did such a thing.
>>
>> Call me somewhat amused that there seems to be a widespread belief
>> that this is unethical behavior. Giving this a new thread as I
>> expect the discussion will be interesting.
>
> A further development of this is: "If you don't get caught you
> didn't do anything wrong." I believe that if we look after our
> community, as one of our values in life: the community will be
> better and stronger. That would be a more wholesome argument than
> mere law or grammar of moral values.
>
> As values determine behaviour, from buying a computer just for a
> convenience period to selling mortgages to people who cannot afford
> them: the question goes far beyond what we can get away with short
> term. There is still at least about a trillion $$'s worth of sub-
> prime financing to sort out: from the 2009 value of the collateral
> securing it to how the hell to pay besides managing enough inflation
> to float the whole problem.
>
> OS 10.6 being a performance upgrade may be an incredibly far sighted
> move on Apple's part. Getting the most out of the computing power we
> have: while the world may not be able to afford much new hardware
> for a few years, as fallout from being ethically selfish... Not
> trying to be religious about the question; in the end moral values
> are practical: after all Jeff does make very good points, too. And
> they should be better understood by computer users.
>
> When I've complained that there is no way to judge the quality of a
> printer: sales people have pointed out that I may purchase and try
> out at my leisure. If it is not good enough I would only pay the
> restocking fee...

I once knew a lady who had no compunction to buy five dresses from
Nordstrom, take them home to show her husband, and return the ones she/
he didn't like. From time to time, I'm told she would occasionally
wear one of the "cocktail dresses" to a gathering, then return it on
Monday. I further understand that doing the latter is not an uncommon
practice by some customers of high end stores which offer liberal
return policies. From published reports, I believe most high end
stores silently tolerate, even sometimes encourage, this practice and
price accordingly.

Up to just recently, even Costco permitted return of expensive
merchandise at any time if you weren't satisfied. I once returned a
carpet cleaner rig that originally cost $250 because its motor failed
twice after 2.5 years. Costco took it back and gave me a full refund.
I expect they would have done the same thing for other items of tech
equipment which failed -- Epson printer, 2 Dell laptops, Toshiba
laptop -- had I purchased them at Costco.

I don't see anything unethical purchasing expensive tech items to try
them out, then returning them a week or two later. Why should the
consumer not use the manufacturer's "free look" options? Sales people
frequently use "You can always return it" as a final push sales
point. I recently bought a Fujitsu Scanner that others had raved
about, intending to just give it a try. Voila!! It worked as well or
better than other purchasers spoke about plus we got a really great
piece of Adobe software, and we kept it.

No one has mentioned on this thread that software companies -- large
and small -- offer what amount to trial periods on their products.
You can download literally thousands of pieces of software for limited
time periods before it quits working, then you decide to either buy it
or not. I'm sure these companies fully understand that many users are
only going to use the product for a single project, then never buy it,
and that was the consumer's intent all along. None of the software
companies that I've ever seen impose any conditions on that kind of
use during the trial period other than standard EULA stuff about
illegal copying, being only licensed for a trial period, etc.

Dave


Dave Clark
http://daveclarkimages.smugmug.com
www.clarklawfirm.com

At 02:21 07/09/08 -0700, John W Baxter wrote:
>Buying something I know I'm going to return is not something I do.

I would add qualification: buying something I know I'm going to USE AND
return is not something I do.

Returning extra parts is standard practice in building supplies. An
electrical or plumbing contractor buys the supplies he/she needs for a job,
making sure to have enough, and returns the excess. This saves time on
extra trips to the store, and possibly doesn't cost merchant much more to
restock then for extra checkouts. Of course the items returned are in
completely new condition, unused.

I'll do the same thing -- if I go into Lowe's or Home Depot and I'm not
sure of the size of something I need, I'll get both sizes and return the
wrong one the next time I'm going that way. The manner in which they handle
returns indicates that they regard this as simply part of being in that
business. Again of course the items returned are in completely new condition.

(I also agree with those who would make exceptions when the merchant
clearly agrees with the proposal, but that's not the point of this note.)

Edward
--
Art works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

On 9-Jul-2008, at 03:00, George Wade wrote:
> When I've complained that there is no way to judge the quality of a
> printer: sales people have pointed out that I may purchase and try
> out at my leisure. If it is not good enough I would only pay the
> restocking fee...

Which is the salesmen gaming the system, as they get credit for the
sale, and don't lose credit for the return.

Round and round she goes...

--On 7/10/08 5:16 AM -0700 Edward Reid wrote:

> I'll do the same thing -- if I go into Lowe's or Home Depot and I'm not
> sure of the size of something I need, I'll get both sizes and return the
> wrong one the next time I'm going that way. The manner in which they handle
> returns indicates that they regard this as simply part of being in that
> business. Again of course the items returned are in completely new condition.

True--which is not the case for a computer.

In contrast--at the same kind of retailer--is something I once observed...
Some folks were on a trip and found themselves spending a week in a facility
without air conditioning during an abnormally warm spell; they chose to go to
Home Depot, buy a few window air conditioners, and return them for a refund at
the end of the week.

While stores like that may expect returns on unused parts or building supplies,
I think it is unethical to use returns-as-rentals on boxed appliances that (a)
you actually use rather than simply having available and (b) cannot be re-sold
as new.

(Which Home-Depot-and-air-conditioners example rebuts Jeff's original
hypothesis that dislike of this approach is simply because we are overly fond
of Apple--"My guess is that affection for Apple is making us a bit less
steel-eyed here than we would be with other companies." I have no such
affection for the Home Despot.)

There's a difference between trying something out and deciding it doesn't work
or isn't appropriate and using a return policy as a free or low-cost rental
service. The former is the reason for the policy, while the latter is taking
unfair advantage of it.

> The only way that this could be seen as unethical, in my view, is to
> take Apple's side in this transaction

What about from the perspective of a consumer who has a legitimate problem with
a purchase, but has to pay a re-stocking fee because of people who would abuse
a free return policy? That's a clear case of return-policy-as-rental having a
negative effect on a consumer. When stores make return policies less generous
to prevent abuse, we all lose the benefit of potentially more generous return
policies.

Dave Scocca

On 7/10/08 8:12 AM, "Dave Clark" <dc1999gmail.com> wrote:

> None of the software
> companies that I've ever seen impose any conditions on that kind of
> use during the trial period other than standard EULA stuff about
> illegal copying, being only licensed for a trial period, etc.

It's not as common as it used to be but it still is *not* uncommon to see
trial software "crippled" in some way, shape or form - unable to print,
watermarks across the document, features unavailable, etc.

--
Shawn King

David Weintraub wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Porten <civitanjeffporten.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2008, at 9:01 AM, David Ross wrote:
>>
>>> There are some of us (I hope a lot) who think of this at a minimum
>>> as gaming the system and in general theft of services from Apple.
>>> I'd walk out on a client who did such a thing.
>> Call me somewhat amused that there seems to be a widespread belief
>> that this is unethical behavior. Giving this a new thread as I expect
>> the discussion will be interesting.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, I can't see it as unethical to abide by the terms
>> of sale that Apple themselves set. Buy a computer and you have a 14-
>> day remorse period -- a perfectly valid reason for remorse is "I don't
>> need this computer any longer", and the reasons *why* you might not
>> need the computer are completely within your purview.
>>
>> If you purchase a computer with the intention of not needing it in 14
>> days, there are still several advantages to Apple/disadvantages to you:
>
> A contract is only legally binding if both sides benefit from the
> contract. This should help determine whether a particular transaction
> should be considered ethical.
>
> It is generally assumed that Apple loses money when someone takes a
> computer, uses it for a few days, and returns it under the 14 day
> agreement period. The computer cannot be resold as new, must be
> refurbished, and sold at a lower price. Probably less than the
> original price minus restocking fee.

It's worse. There's the labor and material costs of repackaging and for a computer putting the hard drive back to a "new" state. And this is NOT the state which the install disks create. They would have to have special install setups to do this that are specific for each model and software distribution for that model. I figure 2 hours at $100 per hour minimum in terms of fully funded labor costs. (If you think that $100 is high, you need to get an education of what it costs to keep a body at a large corporation. $100 may be low by $50 or more.)

So assuming $200 in costs and a 10% price cut, then Apple has gone from selling a $1500 computer for $1350. But when you factor in the $200 Apple is effectively only getting $1150. And this means a loss as margins are not just there for this steep a price cut. And if it's a mini then Apple might literally be better off destroying the computer and writing it off as an expense. Or more likely putting it to some internal use. But both of these create other problems with corporate policy and accounting. $600 - $200 - $90 (15%) = $310 sale price which has got to be way under their cost to get one of these into a store.

> Apple gives a 14 day return period because it knows there are people
> who might think about getting a particular computer, but be hesitant
> about the purchase. Apple offers the 14 day return policy to encourage
> people to go ahead and buy a computer even though they might decide
> later they might not like it. For example, a customer maybe use to
> using Windows systems, but is considering a Mac instead. Giving them
> the option to return it if they don't like the computer may encourage
> an otherwise lost sales opportunity.

I'm sure there is also the need to accommodate 50 state laws, federal laws, and the rules of a few territories and commonwealths which plays into this. Having a single policy nationwide greatly reduces their costs in terms of licensing and sales agreements.

What it comes down to is a returned unit costs Apple a lot of money.

As to the references to shopping at Lowe's. Yes my 45 year old house has been an ongoing project for nearly 20 years. And yes I return unused "new" condition excess parts to Lowe's and Home Depot all the time. But I don't return used things unless they are defective.

My wife just bought a ceiling light/fan unit. While putting it up I got to the point of attaching the blades and could not find the screws to do so. I went through everything in the box and my wife did also. We could not find them. (And they were not a generic screw I could just replace for $.89 or so.) And why this applies to this story is the light had been opened and re-taped. But when I opened it it all seemed to be there. So a trip to Lowe's to find the screws. They opened another box of the same model, gave me the screws, then proceeded to do the paperwork to return the box as missing original parts. I got home put everything together and then at midnight found the screws inside of one of the glass globes inside the bubble wrap. Not at all where it was supposed to be. Called the store and they said forget it as the other fan was already processed to be returned. My point is how much did this cost us? Me an extra $5 in gas and 2 or 3 hours. Lowe's got to process us twice
 and deal with returning a fan to a vendor. And the vendor had to eat a fan. All because someone returned a fan and put the screws back in the wrong place. My point is returns of anything that can't be "just put back" on the shelf costs a lot of money.

David

On 11-Jul-2008, at 02:19, Shawn King wrote:
> On 7/10/08 8:12 AM, "Dave Clark" <dc1999gmail.com> wrote:
>> None of the software
>> companies that I've ever seen impose any conditions on that kind of
>> use during the trial period other than standard EULA stuff about
>> illegal copying, being only licensed for a trial period, etc.
>
> It's not as common as it used to be but it still is *not* uncommon
> to see
> trial software "crippled" in some way, shape or form - unable to
> print,
> watermarks across the document, features unavailable, etc.

But that's not trial or demo software, that's crippleware. that's why
it gets its own (derogatory) word all its own.

On Jul 12, 2008, at 1:47 AM, David Ross wrote:

> David Weintraub wrote:
>> It is generally assumed that Apple loses money when someone takes a
>> computer, uses it for a few days, and returns it under the 14 day
>> agreement period. The computer cannot be resold as new, must be
>> refurbished, and sold at a lower price. Probably less than the
>> original price minus restocking fee.
>
> It's worse. There's the labor and material costs of repackaging and
> for a computer putting the hard drive back to a "new" state. And
> this is NOT the state which the install disks create. They would
> have to have special install setups to do this that are specific for
> each model and software distribution for that model. I figure 2
> hours at $100 per hour minimum in terms of fully funded labor costs.
> (If you think that $100 is high, you need to get an education of
> what it costs to keep a body at a large corporation. $100 may be low
> by $50 or more.)

I'm not sure that this is a realistic assessment of the economics of
the refurb business.

I assume that the bulk of the refurbishment process involves a tech
running hardware diagnostics to ensure that everything is working, and
re-imaging the HD. While the process may require 2 or more hours for
any given machine, I highly doubt that the attention of the tech is
devoted to a single machine for those entire 2 hours. I would assume
that those 2 hours would be spread across multiple machines being
refurbished in parallel. (To put it differently, I am pretty sure
that a single tech would be able to refurbish more than 4 machines in
a single work day.)

That aside, I don't think Apple is losing money on resale. Apple has
gross margins of a bit over 30%. Typically, Apple offers a 15-20%
discount on refurbished products. It charges a 15% restocking fee.
So, if we assume that the refurb discount is on the high side at 20%,
it's margins on the resale is 25% minus whatever the cost is to refurb
the product. For a $1,000 product, that gives you $250 to play with.
Even if we adopt what I think is an unrealistically high cost of
refurbishment of $200, this still gives Apple a positive margin of
5%. A more realistic cost of refurbishment would put the margin higher.

However, it is true that Apple makes less money than it would have,
had the initial sale stuck (so in that sense there is a cost). But
Apple doesn't lose money on the transaction.

> And if it's a mini then Apple might literally be better off
> destroying the computer and writing it off as an expense.

But that is precisely it. If Apple actually loses money by reselling
returns as refurbs, it wouldn't. Apple might destroy the returns
(though I would assume that itself is not costless), use the returns
internally, or better yet donate them to some worthy cause (and get
the write-off as well as the positive press). The very fact that
Apple chooses to refurb and resell returns indicates that they make
some money on the transaction. I would expect nothing less from
responsible and competent management.

Of course, whether the economics of the refurb business is relevant to
the ethics of "gaming" the system is an entirely different matter all
together. A lot people would consider ethics to be a matter of intent
or "good faith" in which case gaming the system is clearly problematic
regardless of the economics. But a discussion of the economics
generally indicates a more consequentialist view, in which case it is
incumbent on us to have a realistic assessment of the economic
outcome. From a consequentialist perspective with a more realistic
assessment of the economics, "gaming" the system is significantly less
problematic. (Admittedly this completely ignores the potential
negative externality inflicted in the form of higher restocking fees
upon people who are returning the product for legitimate reasons,
which makes the consequentialist position a bit more problematic.)

Where you come down on this issue is largely dependent on what sort of
ethical framework (deontological, consequentialist, legalist, etc.)
you adopt. And I am not sure that there is a clear cut answer here.
I was one of the people who suggested the purchase & return option as
one possibility in the original thread. While I have never personally
"gamed" the system (mostly because it makes me a bit uncomfortable), I
suggested the option because I can understand the perspective of those
who would not have a problem with it. And in this particular
situation, I think their perspective (though different from mine) is
defensible.

Tn

If you see an action as unethical, but you know that there are people
who don't and would cheerfully do said action, is it not wrong for you
to suggest doing such an action?

Michael Logue

At 9:47 AM -0700 7/11/08, David Ross wrote:
>And if it's a mini then Apple might literally be better off
>destroying the computer and writing it off as an expense. Or more
>likely putting it to some internal use.

You are missing the sunk cost aspect of this.

They've already paid the cost of manufacturing, etc.. They set the
price so that they can make money, overall. But once the situation
reaches this point, they are looking to make as much money as
possible with the restocked item.

In other words, they already have the expenses written off as
expenses. It's a question of how much revenue that item can generate.
If it take another $200 in expenses (i.e. restoring it to pristine
state and repackaging it) to generate $400 in revenue, that's still a
plus from them. **because the the manufacturing etc. costs are
already sunk costs**.

If they were to throw these things into a landfill, it would because either:
a) The expected future expenses exceed the expected future revenue.
b) There is some other negative impact that factors into the calculation.
c) There is some other positive impact the factors into the calculation.

But the fact that they can't charge as much on the item as they put
into it is NOT sufficient reason.

At 9:47 AM -0700 7/11/08, David Ross wrote:
>[particulars of Lowe's ceiling story deleted] My point is returns of
>anything that can't be "just put back" on the shelf costs a lot of
>money.

I think you make the point very well. That is a great illustration of
where the costs can come from.

--
=Alex Hoffman
Leadership, Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

At 2:20 PM -0700 7/12/08, Tomoharu Nishino wrote:
>That aside, I don't think Apple is losing money on resale. Apple has
>gross margins of a bit over 30%. Typically, Apple offers a 15-20%
>discount on refurbished products. It charges a 15% restocking fee.
>So, if we assume that the refurb discount is on the high side at 20%,
>it's margins on the resale is 25% minus whatever the cost is to refurb
>the product. For a $1,000 product, that gives you $250 to play with.
>Even if we adopt what I think is an unrealistically high cost of
>refurbishment of $200, this still gives Apple a positive margin of
>5%. A more realistic cost of refurbishment would put the margin higher.

Well, you leave out a lot of the costs of refurbishment.

* The time of the employee handling the return.
* The time of the employees handling shipping the item back to the
refurbishing center.
* The cost of transportation there and back to whereever.
* The additional costs of the employee(s) handling the additional sale.
* The cost of maintaining another SKU throughout the system.

As I've never worked in retail, I've probably left quite a few out.

>However, it is true that Apple makes less money than it would have,
>had the initial sale stuck (so in that sense there is a cost). But
>Apple doesn't lose money on the transaction.

Frankly, I don't think that any of us are in a position to know how
the math works out for such situations. If you ran your old store,
did the refurbishing yourself and just put it back on the shelf,
that's pretty simple. But in an organization like Apple, it's
complicated.

Frankly, this argument -- Tomoharu, but everyone who is trying to
figure out the dollars -- is starting to sound like some of the most
common arguments on stealing/sharing music. Someone other than the
owner, someone without full information, is declaring that the
benefits outweigh the costs, so its OK.

At 2:21 AM -0700 7/9/08, David Silbey wrote:
>I think probably the best way of figuring out whether something is
>ethical is to decide on the reaction of the other party to full
>disclosure. If one walked into the Apple Store and announced a plan
>to buy, use, and then return a laptop within the 14 days, how would
>they react?

I think this David gives a great guide, with one caveat. It's not the
line-level retail employees to whom you should disclose, but rather
much higher ups who have responsibility for making Apple policy. If
you think that those folks would be OK with -- and not just that they
OUGHT to be OK with it -- then you are acting ethically. However, if
you think that you are pulling one over on them, or that you are
colluding (e.g. with line level employees) to pull one over on them,
then there's a problem.

--
=Alex Hoffman
Leadership, Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

I find it odd that someone would consider a buyer's complying 100% with a corporation's stated return policies to be unethical. Apple could very easily specify stricter conditions for return; software licensing does this all the time ("By downloading this software, you agree to the following terms..."). Obviously if Apple specified that you were agreeing not to buy something for the specific purpose of returning it, they would have no way of enforcing that; however, their asking you to agree to it, and you proceeding with the transaction afterwards, would make it unethical to do so.

Apple is not legally required to offer a 14 day no-questions-asked return policy. They have chosen to do so, and what's more, chosen to do so with no provisions regarding buyer intent.

It's not theft, that's ludicrous... that's like me loaning you my hammer, then, when you returned it, claiming you'd stolen it because I decided I didn't like what you used it to build. Maybe you put some wear & tear on it by using it, sure; every use degrades the condition of a material object. But if I said you could use it, and offered no further restrictions, then I have agreed to accept that and you're in the clear.

So I wonder, what, specifically, is the ethical transgression here? No one has lied to anyone, done anything they've been asked not to, or violated any stated agreements. The sales agreement is "You can return it in 14 days." There are no implied agreements beyond that, and the buyer is not bound by anything not stated explicitly. I get the sense the outraged posters here are thinking, "If someone did that to me with something I was selling, I'd be outraged." Well, you are not Apple Comp^h^h^h^h Inc. They have chosen how they want to do business and set up pricing and policies that work best to maximize their profits.

I know firsthand about the high-end clothing retailers who will clench their teeth and accept back clothing that has obviously been worn, as I have family in the business. Don't you think they know it's happening? They choose to institute sales policies that allow it. They could change those policies, but they don't. People behaving that way is part of their business model.

Apple Inc. isn't a casual acquaintance with whom you have a relationship, and whom you can expect tacit understandings with. It's a business, dealing with them is solely a business transaction, there's no understandings except that which is explicitly expressed either in their own policies or in the law of the land. In buying from them, living up to the letter of an agreement is sufficient. It's up to them to cover their ass by instituting the terms they desire.

I think the gray area here is whether the *intent* to "game the system" is ethical... IE, regardless of whether it's technically allowed under terms of the sale, is the buyer, in his own mind, trying to do something he believes would not be allowed by the seller if they knew the full truth? If so, then it's an attempted deception, and I think that would be unethical. Intent is the key - if you steal something from me and later find out I would have happily given it to you anyway, it's still wrong. But, as I said, Apple knows people are doing this, it's part of their model. There's been no intentional deception, and the situational ethics which you imagine you'd desire as a vendor yourself have no implications for sales transactions conducted with Apple or any other company. It may not be what you'd want someone to do to you, but that doesn't make it unethical.

On a personal note, I have had Apple use similar arguments to the above, when a repair tech of theirs did more damage to my laptop than repairs. They couldn't have been bigger weasels... claiming I had no proof, saying their was a "chance" it hadn't been their tech who broke it, etc. They live up to the letter of what they need to do and not a bit more. So I see no reason to do more for them.

At 10:12 AM -0700 7/15/08, Alexander Hoffman wrote:
>At 2:21 AM -0700 7/9/08, David Silbey wrote:
>>I think probably the best way of figuring out whether something is
>>ethical is to decide on the reaction of the other party to full
>>disclosure. If one walked into the Apple Store and announced a plan
>>to buy, use, and then return a laptop within the 14 days, how would
>>they react?
>
>I think this David gives a great guide, with one caveat. It's not the
>line-level retail employees to whom you should disclose, but rather
>much higher ups who have responsibility for making Apple policy. If
>you think that those folks would be OK with -- and not just that they
>OUGHT to be OK with it -- then you are acting ethically. However, if
>you think that you are pulling one over on them, or that you are
>colluding (e.g. with line level employees) to pull one over on them,
>then there's a problem.

        This can start to get into the "tragedy of the commons" type of
situation though - someone could allow or even encourage certain behaviour
in order to get some sort of PR type of benefit, even though such behaviour
if carried out in large scale is unsustainable. As one of the "unwashed
masses", is it ethical to behave in a way that has negative consequences
for the larger group, even if such behaviour is explicitly allowed? In
general I would say that it is not ethical to do so, but of course each
situation is potentially unique - I have considered using this particular
tactic when having a system "in the shop" myself.


--
* Johann Beda - contact link: <http://xri.net/=j-beda> *
* Johann's MostlyMac Computer Consulting - <http://mmcc.beda.ca/> *

On Jul 16, 2008, at 2:04 AM, Alexander Hoffman wrote:

> Frankly, this argument -- Tomoharu, but everyone who is trying to
> figure out the dollars -- is starting to sound like some of the most
> common arguments on stealing/sharing music. Someone other than the
> owner, someone without full information, is declaring that the
> benefits outweigh the costs, so its OK.

For the record, in my post, I did clearly say that the economics of
the issue may be irrelevant to the question of ethics. From the
perspective that the intent behind the action matters more than the
consequences in passing ethical judgement then the economic
consequences are clearly of marginal relevance. From my original post:

>> Of course, whether the economics of the refurb business is relevant
>> to
>> the ethics of "gaming" the system is an entirely different matter all
>> together. A lot people would consider ethics to be a matter of
>> intent
>> or "good faith" in which case gaming the system is clearly
>> problematic
>> regardless of the economics. But a discussion of the economics
>> generally indicates a more consequentialist view, in which case it is
>> incumbent on us to have a realistic assessment of the economic
>> outcome.

Just to be clear, my point in discussing the economics was simply that
if you are going to adopt the consequentialist position "You shouldn't
do this because it hurts Apple financially", then you need to try to
be as realistic as you can on your assessment of the consequences.
(As Alexander points out, we are all guessing here with respect to
Apple's financials, so perhaps all such consequentialist assessments
are fundamentally suspect. But if that is the case, then *neither
side* should be able to use the consequentialist argument.)

And I'm not convinced that likening this to the theft of music is
particularly useful in helping us to understand the fundamental
ethical question in this case. IMHO, most reasonable people would
agree that sharing or receiving music beyond the scope of "fair use"
is in fact theft of copyrighted material. The disagreement usually
centers around whether such theft is nevertheless justified given the
nature of the product and the behavior of the music industry. But
very few people would dispute (if they were being honest) that the
underlying behavior is theft, and involves a breach of contract at
some point in the chain.

In this discussion, we are essentially debating whether "gaming the
system" constitutes the ethical equivalent of theft, and there seems
to be genuine disagreement between those who adopt the proceduralist/
legalist perspective, and those who adopt a more moralist/
deontological perspective. The (imperfect) consequentialist arguments
only serve to complicate matters further.

Having read through the thread with interest, I think this is a
genuine ethical gray area where reasonable people can reasonably
disagree---and here, I'm assuming that TidBITS readers are
reasonable ;-)---in a way that theft of music is not. Personally, I
would prefer that people err on the side of caution and not "game the
system". But I am not yet convinced that those who exercise their
right to return a product stipulated in an agreement freely entered
into by both parties should be condemned for doing so.

Tn

At 4:59 AM -0700 7/16/08, kupietz wrote:
>There are no implied agreements beyond that, and the buyer is not
>bound by anything not stated explicitly.

I think that this is the primary root of our disagreement.

I believe that there is something more than that which is stated
explicitly. I believe that there is also an ethnical obligation to
enter into these agreements in good faith.

Good faith means that when I agree to purchase something, it is NOT
my intention to instead borrow or rent it. It is my intention to
purchase it. That does not prevent me from changing my mind or my
circumstances changing, of course. But ethically, my original
intentions matter.

This idea of good faith also has application in law when it comes to
contract and the like, but I am not going to get into that because
this is a discussion of ethics. Regardless of the legal
ramifications, if I am acting in good faith, I believe that that I am
acting unethically, as are others.

****************

>I know firsthand about the high-end clothing retailers who will
>clench their teeth and accept back clothing that has obviously been
>worn, as I have family in the business. Don't you think they know
>it's happening? They choose to institute sales policies that allow
>it. They could change those policies, but they don't. People
>behaving that way is part of their business model.

That some companies find it worth the costs to tolerate unethical
behavior from their customers does not make more ethical.

Moreover, I do not think that this is actually the right example. I
would bet that the explicit policy is that only unworn clothing can
be returned, and that the business accepts the representation of the
customer that it is unworn, even when that it plainly false.


>Apple Inc. isn't a casual acquaintance with whom you have a
>relationship, and whom you can expect tacit understandings with.
>It's a business, dealing with them is solely a business transaction,
>there's no understandings except that which is explicitly expressed
>either in their own policies or in the law of the land.

Which, I believe, requires that both parties act in good faith.


>I think the gray area here is whether the *intent* to "game the
>system" is ethical... IE, regardless of whether it's technically
>allowed under terms of the sale, is the buyer, in his own mind,
>trying to do something he believes would not be allowed by the
>seller if they knew the full truth? If so, then it's an attempted
>deception, and I think that would be unethical. Intent is the key -
>if you steal something from me and later find out I would have
>happily given it to you anyway, it's still wrong. But, as I said,
>Apple knows people are doing this, it's part of their model. There's
>been no intentional deception.

The fact that they know that this is done by many customers does not
mean that they know that that particular customer is doing it at that
time. So, the build the fact that some customers will act unethically
into their business model, yes. General knowledge of a behavior is
not the same thing as specific knowledge of an instance. If Apple
lacks that specific knowledge, you cannot use their general knowledge
of the possibility as knowledge of intent.

We return to someone else's example of shoplifting. Retail
establishments have to build into their models some loss due to
shoplifting. But their knowledge that this happens and financial
preparedness to account for it does not make the specific instances
any deceitful or unethical.


>On a personal note, I have had Apple use similar arguments to the
>above, when a repair tech of theirs did more damage to my laptop
>than repairs. They couldn't have been bigger weasels... claiming I
>had no proof, saying their was a "chance" it hadn't been their tech
>who broke it, etc. They live up to the letter of what they need to
>do and not a bit more. So I see no reason to do more for them.

This is a different point, the question of whether their possibly
unethical behavior justify an otherwise unethical response? They had
an explicit obligation to fix your computer, and an implicit
obligation not to harm it further. Perhaps their behavior was simply
unethical, but perhaps it was negligent or worse. But if this
incident had not happened, would that change the ethics of purchasing
a computer with the intent of returning it?

--
=Alex Hoffman
Leadership, Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

If many of us try being open in our intentions; especially NOT
covert: we shall not have a computer sector, sub-prime sales scandal
-- sneak up on us in the middle of one dark and stormy night. There
will always be someone who speaks most impressively about buying a
tower and 30" cinema screen for 'Grandmother's Day' and demanding
free courier delivery 'Right Now.' 13.99 days later the stuff is
returned with the covering remark that "Grandma died of an MRSA
infection: we are having the keyboard and screen tested and the
Path. Lab will send them back to you directly".

We could start a 'Hilarious excuses' sub-thread.

>>> Of course, whether the economics of the refurb business is
>>> relevant to the ethics of "gaming" the system is an entirely
>>> different matter all together. A lot people would consider
>>> ethics to be a matter of intent or "good faith" in which case
>>> gaming the system is clearly problematic regardless of the
>>> economics. But a discussion of the economics generally indicates
>>> a more consequentialist view, in which case it is incumbent on us
>>> to have a realistic assessment of the economic outcome.


Future Shop have already offered, perfectly openly, to have me take
any printer home on the 10 or 15 day return policy. I did that with
my Samsung Printer and it worked out well. Next time it might be an
iTouch. I wouldn't do it lightly as my time setting up is more
valuable than the return; as valuable as half the return on the top
model;-) AND I'd end up buying something Apple sooner or later.

The thread has helped put the whole concept in a variety of
perspectives: which I find more practical than splitting the hairs
on an ivory elephant's tail... And it really does go a long way to
solving the riddle of 'Will the gear do the job I want it to?'

George

Tomoharu Nishino wrote:
> Having read through the thread with interest, I think this is a
> genuine ethical gray area where reasonable people can reasonably
> disagree---and here, I'm assuming that TidBITS readers are
> reasonable ;-)---in a way that theft of music is not. Personally, I
> would prefer that people err on the side of caution and not "game the
> system". But I am not yet convinced that those who exercise their
> right to return a product stipulated in an agreement freely entered
> into by both parties should be condemned for doing so.

I started this topic. Or morphed another thread into it.

Condemned? A bit farther down the spectrum of values than I'd go. Wrong? In my opinion, completely.

And I come to this as I'd lately had to deal with more people/clients(ex) than I'd like who basically say in private, if you can get away with something and you don't feel it hurts any particular individual then do it. Legal or not. Forget ethics. To these people (and they tend to admit they think this way) theft is when you get caught. And to go with this if you don't get caught and no one notices then there's nothing wrong.

Now that we're about 10 miles away from "Macs", I guess Adam will close this topic down. :)

[Actually Joe (since Adam's away) has been thinking that's looking like a mighty good idea! The original thread from which this one spun off was my story about not having a good backup computer when my MacBook Pro was in the shop (it's back now, with a new logic board). Anyway, yes, we're waaaay off track here, so let's shut down this thread. -Joe]

David

[I'm going to let this message through because it was sent before I said we were shutting down the thread, but with sincere apologies to everyone else who'd like to respond/rebut/rejoin, this is really the last one on this topic. -Joe]


On 7/16/08 at 4:59 AM, emperordottidbitsdotcomkupietz.com (kupietz)
wrote:

>Apple is not legally required to offer a 14 day no-questions-asked
>return policy. They have chosen to do so, and what's more, chosen to
>do so with no provisions regarding buyer intent.

True

>It's not theft, that's ludicrous... that's like me loaning you my
>hammer, then, when you returned it, claiming you'd stolen it because
>I decided I didn't like what you used it to build.

No, its not theft. But neither is it like the loan you describe.
A loan is permission of a hammer is permission to use with no
expectation of payment and an expectation of return of the
hammer in reasonable condition. Apple certainly expects payment.
Additionally, a return policy is not the same as an expectation
of return.

>So I wonder, what, specifically, is the ethical transgression here?
>No one has lied to anyone, done anything they've been asked not to,
>or violated any stated agreements. The sales agreement is "You can
>return it in 14 days." There are no implied agreements beyond that,

And this is just the issue. A return policy is not an
expectation of return. Apple clearly expects to make a sale and
have no returns.

>and the buyer is not bound by anything not stated explicitly.

This is true from a legal standpoint but doesn't address the ethics.

One of the ethics classes I attended suggested a fairly simple
criteria for judging whether something was ethical or not. If
you would have no problem with your actions being front page
news on the New York Times, then likely there is no ethical
issue. But if seeing your actions being reported as front page
news on the New York Times would cause you discomfort, then
likely there is an ethical issue.

The remainder of your post seemed to be examples which have no
relevance to whether "buying" a laptop for use while your laptop
is being repaired, fully intending to return the laptop you
"bought" within 14 days is ethical or not. And note my use of
quotes here. Clearly, if you know you will return the laptop
within the 14 days allowed regardless of condition or
performance of the laptop, then you really aren't buying the
laptop. And that is the ethical issue since Apple is in the
business of selling, not renting, laptops.

On 11-Jul-2008, at 10:47, David Ross wrote:
> It's worse. There's the labor and material costs of repackaging and
> for a computer putting the hard drive back to a "new" state. And
> this is NOT the state which the install disks create. They would
> have to have special install setups to do this that are specific for
> each model and software distribution for that model. I figure 2
> hours at $100 per hour minimum in terms of fully funded labor costs.
> (If you think that $100 is high, you need to get an education of
> what it costs to keep a body at a large corporation. $100 may be low
> by $50 or more.)


Doing a system restore on a Mac doesn't take two hours. As far as
human intervention goes, it takes a few minutes. And yes, the 'new'
state of the computer is the same state as created by installing off
the disks that came with the computer.